What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Under what circumstances would Americans give up all their armed forces and institute laws which completely banned the use of weapons by civilians?

i.e. no army, no naval forces, no air force.

no chemical, biological, nuclear or regular armaments

no means of offense or defense?

You mean like Tibet? It has none of those things and when China wanted to take it over, there was no resistance and now Tibet is part of China. If Russia, China and all of the other countries would get rid of their weapons then I'd thnk America might give it some thought but even then I'd doubt it.

What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Complete demilitarisation of the rest of the world, perhaps.


Under what circumstances would Americans give up all their armed forces and institute laws which completely banned the use of weapons by civilians?

Americans are quite fond of their second amendment, and that doesn't even involve international relations.

So, I guess the answer is: under circumstances where they were given no choice.

So, I guess the answer is: under circumstances where they were given no choice.

So Americans would not give up their weapons without being forced?

What sort of conditions, other than military force, could be created to force Americans to give up their weapons?

All of them, each and every one? Under what conditions would Americans be prepared to be completely defenseless where weapons were concerned?

Never, under no conditions. The ability to destroy each other will keep the peace.

easy
when every nation joins our union
we shall however, on behalf of earth, deploy the most awesome weaponry in high orbit in order to repel the coming alien invasion

easy
when every nation joins our union
we shall however, on behalf of earth, deploy the most awesome weaponry in high orbit in order to repel the coming alien invasion

So you don't think China or Japan could hold the US economy hostage conditional to the demilitarisation of the US? Would Americans choose a wrecked economy a la the Soviet Union over being de-weaponised?

that seems to be an overtly hostile move
i'd go to some defcon shit

i dont understand the 2nd question

sam
do we have any precedents for the scenario outlined in the op?
some applicable analogies perhaps?

that seems to be an overtly hostile move
i'd go to some defcon shit

What kind of defcon shit?


i dont understand the 2nd question

I'm trying to avoid this becoming a specific discussion, more of a what if scenario [currently reading Neverending Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Neverending-Wars-International-Community-Perpetuation/dp/0674015320) and having some vague thoughts about other directions, people are so used to the "normal" way of doing things, they don't seem to understand that time has run out for much of the old ways ]

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency.” John Maynard Keynes – The Economic Consequences of Peace..

“Much has been made of U.S. dependence on foreign energy, but the country’s dependence on foreign cash is even more distressing.” - Lawrence Summers
source: America Overdrawn (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/07/01/america_overdrawn)


sam
do we have any precedents for the scenario outlined in the op?
some applicable analogies perhaps?

On demilitarisation? Yup, there are plenty of precedents [must look up more books on this topic :)]

Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles), South Africa (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Ekurhuleni-reveals-demilitarisation-plan-20101017) Soviet Union (?) (http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/industrial_demilitarization_privatization_economic _reform_and_investment_in_russia_analysis_and_reco mmendations/). But these are all under military pressure [except South Africa]. I'm trying to think of non-military ways of imposing demilitarisation and if it were possible.

It would require a complete rout on the battlefield. All the billions and trillions would be exposed as complete waste and people within America would be VERY pissed off.

Eventually the U.S will be routed in a stand up fight. It is very possible as they rely more and more on technology and they are losing the tried and true "one shot one kill" doctrine of the past.

What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Under what circumstances would Americans give up all their armed forces and institute laws which completely banned the use of weapons by civilians?

i.e. no army, no naval forces, no air force.

no chemical, biological, nuclear or regular armaments

no means of offense or defense?

What a silly question. You might as well have asked, "Hey, what do you think it would take for America to let itself be taken completly by Canada/Mexico/China and not fight back?"

My question to you would be, "Why would you ask such as stupid and obviously loaded question?"

It would require a complete rout on the battlefield. All the billions and trillions would be exposed as complete waste and people within America would be VERY pissed off.

Eventually the U.S will be routed in a stand up fight. It is very possible as they rely more and more on technology and they are losing the tried and true "one shot one kill" doctrine of the past.

Trust me, one shot, one kill is the exact point of the technology. Just think about guided weapons for a moment and feel free to erase your last post.

When you ask if something has a possibility of happening in the US, you need to ask if that suits the interest of the corporations.

No it stands, you are ignorant of my meaning.

So you don't think China or Japan could hold the US economy hostage conditional to the demilitarisation of the US? Would Americans choose a wrecked economy a la the Soviet Union over being de-weaponised?

Americans are violent animals that prey. Economic collapse will lead to more violence . I call it the Blow em up mentality . There is one way except I am keeping my guns . Cowboys need there six shooters . A paradigm shift in thinking will do it . Right here on this forum it is taking place already . I call it the war of words . The last battle has begun . World war 3 is all about the war of words . It determines out come of the future by altering thinking by debate . When thought is altered actions are altered . Be of good cheer because you are one bad ass soldier in the war of words . Hero type personality . I love you for that . Keep up the good fight

No it stands, you are ignorant of my meaning.

No I get your meaning, your just wrong.

Americans are violent animals that prey. Economic collapse will lead to more violence . I call it the Blow em up mentality . There is one way except I am keeping my guns . Cowboys need there six shooters . A paradigm shift in thinking will do it . Right here on this forum it is taking place already . I call it the war of words . The last battle has begun . World war 3 is all about the war of words . It determines out come of the future by altering thinking by debate . When thought is altered actions are altered . Be of good cheer because you are one bad ass soldier in the war of words . Hero type personality . I love you for that . Keep up the good fight

Your right, Americans are animals, not people like everyone else. :bugeye:

Americans are violent animals that prey. Economic collapse will lead to more violence . I call it the Blow em up mentality . There is one way except I am keeping my guns . Cowboys need there six shooters . A paradigm shift in thinking will do it . Right here on this forum it is taking place already . I call it the war of words . The last battle has begun . World war 3 is all about the war of words . It determines out come of the future by altering thinking by debate . When thought is altered actions are altered . Be of good cheer because you are one bad ass soldier in the war of words . Hero type personality . I love you for that . Keep up the good fight

Except talking doesn't do shit.

What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Probably the exact same circumstances that would lead to Pakistan, and the entire Muslim world with it, giving up all of their weapons.

Short of some kind of divine-intervention/conquest by space-aliens, I can't imagine any realistic circumstances where it would happen.

What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Under what circumstances would Americans give up all their armed forces and institute laws which completely banned the use of weapons by civilians?

i.e. no army, no naval forces, no air force.

no chemical, biological, nuclear or regular armaments

no means of offense or defense?

The moment everybody else is dead and buried.

how about we outsource to the chinese?

/snicker

When you ask if something has a possibility of happening in the US, you need to ask if that suits the interest of the corporations.

To some extent I agree with that, but even corporations cannot function in a vacuum. They require political backing and military clout.


It would require a complete rout on the battlefield. All the billions and trillions would be exposed as complete waste and people within America would be VERY pissed off.

Eventually the U.S will be routed in a stand up fight. It is very possible as they rely more and more on technology and they are losing the tried and true "one shot one kill" doctrine of the past.

Routed by whom? In the book I referenced above [Neverending Wars] Hironaka makes a case for how civil conflicts are prolonged by the internatonal community for profit. What makes those states vulnerable according to her are weak organisation, lack of resources, poor bureaucracy all of which I consider can be boiled down to poor economy and poor management skills.


Hironaka goes to great lengths to reject the notion that group or ethnic identities are the prime culprits in a country's level of civil war. Ethnicity ceases to be statistically significant once indicators of state weakness are included. A more detailed analysis reveals that the observed large number of civil wars, which, if correct, implies a sudden explosion of new civil wars, is mainly the flawed result of failing to account for continuing civil wars. Indeed, most internal wars recorded in 1990 began as early as the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of the Cold War. This is true for Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka, among others.

What I find intriguing in her analysis is that of the three "solutions" she offers, colonialism, secessionism and international aid, the last is the only one which she considers as having momentum in the future. But in my opinion [after reading various reports by Anup here (http://www.globalissues.org/)] international aid is a form of colonialism - and a much more insidious and effective one. Only, the way it works, it could make a colony of any state on earth, merely by directing the economy of the "victim" state to its benefit

So in this what if scenario, considering the notion of using civil wars to prolong conflict, could international aid [or national debt] be used to enforce demilitarisation?

Americans are violent animals that prey. Economic collapse will lead to more violence . I call it the Blow em up mentality . There is one way except I am keeping my guns . Cowboys need there six shooters . A paradigm shift in thinking will do it . Right here on this forum it is taking place already . I call it the war of words . The last battle has begun . World war 3 is all about the war of words . It determines out come of the future by altering thinking by debate . When thought is altered actions are altered . Be of good cheer because you are one bad ass soldier in the war of words . Hero type personality . I love you for that . Keep up the good fight

Also, If this forum is an indication of this paradigm shift you speak of then we must be on our way to having a physical world war three. Honestly this forum is filled with so much hate mongering, bigotry, and ignorance that it's giving the forums over at faux news a run for their money.

The moment everybody else is dead and buried.


especially the canadians

Also, If this forum is an indication of this paradigm shift you speak of then we must be on our way to having a physical world war three. Honestly this forum is filled with so much hate mongering, bigotry, and ignorance that it's giving the forums over at faux news a run for their money.


case in point.....


Also, If this forum is an indication of this paradigm shift you speak of then we must be on our way to having a physical world war three. Honestly this forum is filled with so much hate mongering, bigotry, and ignorance that it's giving the forums over at faux news a run for their money.

especially the canadians

Yes, all Canadians have to be accounted for, and confirmed diseased by at least 4 independent sources.

To add some facts into this fantasy:


The U.S. government is expected to hit the $14.294 trillion debt ceiling Monday, setting in motion an uncertain, 11-week political scramble to avoid a default.

The Treasury Department said Monday it will stop issuing and reinvesting government securities in certain government pension plans, part of a series of steps designed to delay a default until Aug. 2.

The Treasury's moves buy time for the White House and congressional leaders to reach a deficit-reduction agreement that could clear the way for enough lawmakers to vote to raise the amount of money Congress allows the nation to borrow.

Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, said reaching the debt ceiling "should be a warning bell to the political system that it's time to get serious about preserving our full faith and credit." The Obama administration says a default would tip the U.S. back into a financial crisis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576325583050561022.html

If given the choice between an economy upheld by foreign investors and their guns, what would Americans choose?

So in this what if scenario, considering the notion of using civil wars to prolong conflict, could international aid [or national debt] be used to enforce demilitarisation?


nice
the russia link seems pertinent....


Following the end of the Cold War, the United States and its allies recognized that it was in their vital security interests to promote stable transitions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the New Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union. For the most part, such transitions would depend on the efforts of the states in transition themselves, including many that had been newly formed. However, one way in which the Western nations could help was by economic assistance -- both financial and technical.
which of course probably hinges on...

The objectives of the project are to study and assist the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnel, technology, etc.), and building a civilian industry and infrastructure.

So Americans would not give up their weapons without being forced?

What sort of conditions, other than military force, could be created to force Americans to give up their weapons?

All of them, each and every one? Under what conditions would Americans be prepared to be completely defenseless where weapons were concerned?

Why does your question single out the United States? Why isn't it asking about universal disarmament and world peace??

Once again, the conditions that would force the United States to become totally defenseless are precisely the same conditions that would impel your own Islamic world to become totally defenseless.

nice
the russia link seems pertinent....

which of course probably hinges on...

The objectives of the project are to study and assist the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnel, technology, etc.), and building a civilian industry and infrastructure.

Not the way I am thinking of it. Right now, US bankruptcy is being balanced by Chinese inflation. This is at best, a Ponzi scheme so that eventually - and this is inevitable - China will have to choose between US economy or Chinese economy.

Right now US military adventures are financed by the Chinese

How US is deferring war costs (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html)

Debt financed death-dealing (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/05/debt_financed_deathdealin)

which means that if the US goes to war with China, who will pay for it? The American people. Are they willing to finance a war with the country that is holding up the dollar?

And if not, what can the Chinese [or Japan (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt)] do to enforce demilitarisation of the US?

case in point.....

Ah HA HA HA good one. You're so whitty.

Routed by whom? In the book I referenced above [Neverending Wars] Hironaka makes a case for how civil conflicts are prolonged by the internatonal community for profit. What makes those states vulnerable according to her are weak organisation, lack of resources, poor bureaucracy all of which I consider can be boiled down to poor economy and poor management skills.

Everything the U.S has so far acquired by force, came from the valour of it's soldiers. The discipline of the officers. The Lessons and brilliance taught by it's generals.

All three are in decline and giving way to the corporation's military of gadgets. Whenever I talk to a guy in the U.S military these days , he sounds just like the assholes in U.S corporations. With their bullshit action items, cover your ass modus operendi and mercenary attitude that prevades modern culture.

In essence the U.S is primed and ready to meet the Hannibal To their Rome. I don't think it will end well.

Why does your question single out the United States? Why isn't it asking about universal disarmament and world peace??

Once again, the conditions that would force the United States to become totally defenseless are precisely the same conditions that would impel your own Islamic world to become totally defenseless.

Well its very simple. Take Pakistan for instance.


Post 9/11, Pakistan has received nearly $18 billion as aid from the United States, including $11.5 billion as military assistance, according to Congressional documents.

A Congressional compilation of US aid to Pakistan says Islamabad has received $6 billion in civilian aid after the September 11 terrorist attack in New York.

The Obama Administration in its latest annual budget has proposed $1.6 billion in military assistance and about $1.4 billion as civilian assistance to Pakistan.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-23/pakistan/28138643_1_civilian-aid-counterinsurgency-capability-fund-civilian-assistance

I believe in starting with the root of the problem.


Everything the U.S has so far acquired by force, came from the valour of it's soldiers. The discipline of the officers. The Lessons and brilliance taught by it's generals.

All three are in decline and giving way to the corporation's military of gadgets. Whenever I talk to a guy in the U.S military these days , he sounds just like the assholes in U.S corporations. With their bullshit action items, cover your ass modus operendi and mercenary attitude that prevades modern culture.

In essence the U.S is primed and ready to meet the Hannibal To their Rome.

Have you read Peter Beinart's The Icarus Syndrome (http://www.amazon.com/Icarus-Syndrome-History-American-Hubris/dp/0061456462)?


I don't think it will end well.

Oh I don't know - the world is a changing landscape these days. Expect the unexpected.

Not the way I am thinking of it.

forget the details

/dismisses

the bottom line is if i hold so many of your iou's and you want me to continue issuing them, i can and should expect you to be fiscally responsible

Cables show China used debt holdings to press US (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-38wsWDlg6gksgnaXzkrOZQ0tGA)

like you pointed out, is it not what is demanded of others?


Everything the U.S has so far acquired by force, came from the valour of it's soldiers. The discipline of the officers. The Lessons and brilliance taught by it's generals.


onward aryan warriors!
heil!

To some extent I agree with that, but even corporations cannot function in a vacuum. They require political backing and military clout.


There is no separation of corporations and politics here.

sam
defcon shit is when we blanket brazil with a deadly nerve toxin that instantaneously kills every bug in existence in that country

defcon crap is when we deport trash talking foreigners back to their misbegotten homelands

There is no separation of corporations and politics here.

Again, some truth there but not complete

For example: Chinese investments in the US are over 2 trillion but can you identify them? Saudi investments in the US are between 400 and 800 billion US dollars [under US law, public disclosure of foreign investments by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries is not available and is exempt from Freedom of Information Act] but how much do you think US investors would be willing to pay to bail out the Saudis? How many Americans are aware that Saudi Arabia might be outsourcing agriculture (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010050170980) to the US?

Sure there is a lot of complicity and quid pro quo between corporations and politicians but it goes both ways.

Would US politicians be willing to sell out the US to foreign corporations? The influence that Israel and Murdoch has over US politics seems to indicate that it might be possible, but neither Israel nor Murdoch are real threats, economically or militarily to the US

To some extent I agree with that, but even corporations cannot function in a vacuum. They require political backing and military clout.



Routed by whom? In the book I referenced above [Neverending Wars] Hironaka makes a case for how civil conflicts are prolonged by the internatonal community for profit. What makes those states vulnerable according to her are weak organisation, lack of resources, poor bureaucracy all of which I consider can be boiled down to poor economy and poor management skills.



What I find intriguing in her analysis is that of the three "solutions" she offers, colonialism, secessionism and international aid, the last is the only one which she considers as having momentum in the future. But in my opinion [after reading various reports by Anup here (http://www.globalissues.org/)] international aid is a form of colonialism - and a much more insidious and effective one. Only, the way it works, it could make a colony of any state on earth, merely by directing the economy of the "victim" state to its benefit

So in this what if scenario, considering the notion of using civil wars to prolong conflict, could international aid [or national debt] be used to enforce demilitarisation?

See you are smart . You might even having a chance at understanding Me . I already changed the paradigm. People just don't know it yet . It will take some time before you do because people are idiots and don't know who they can trust . So you want to know what I did ? I front loaded a country with the information for them to take control and not be a victim . By God Holy shit if it ain't the freakiest thing I ever did . Yeah Way . Through the churches in Port Au Prince I inseminated there religious culture with the tools to be the boss instead of being bossed . No f---cking shit Shurlock. I could not believe it . Some one finally listened to Me and acted on it with out getting a paycheck . Unusually I am the guy in the back ground no one listens to as I am saying " Don't do it and then they say " Shit we should not have done that . I don't know? I try real hard not to say "I told you so . So I got tired of the bull shit cut out the middle man and talked to the Haitians through there churches . So I set up the front end with instruction of what to do to take control of there country and now I am on the back end at a point to deliver the goods they need to have a vibrant economy . It will take many years for it to all unfold, but the plan was solid and over 300,000 Haitians are working to make it happen . This is just the stepping stone example . It will be the new economic model . See I know this shit because I am the originator of the dream the world is going to fallow . Why would they and why would I be so confident that they will . People copy success as to be successful them selves . So All you shit dogs should get on the train now and support Wood For Haiti or look stupid when it becomes more evident to you that I am not telling fibs. I have been planing this my entire life is the weird thing . I don't know how that happened ? There is a ghost in the machine is all I can figure

Not the way I am thinking of it. Right now, US bankruptcy is being balanced by Chinese inflation. This is at best, a Ponzi scheme so that eventually - and this is inevitable - China will have to choose between US economy or Chinese economy.

Err.. the balance sheet of the US Federal Government is not the same thing as "the US economy."



Right now US military adventures are financed by the Chinese

And the Japanese, and the Arabs, and the Europeans, and Americans, and... While China is the single largest foreign institutional player in the US debt market, they only account for about 15% of the pot. It was only a couple of years ago that they surpassed Japan for that title, in fact. I suspect you'll actually find that if you totaled up the US debt holdings of American allies (NATO, Japan, ANZUS, Saudi Arabia, etc.), that this outstrips China's holdings. And anyway more than half of US public debt is owed to American individuals and institutions in the first place.



which means that if the US goes to war with China, who will pay for it?

Why would the US go to war with China? The entire point of this "you buy our debt, we buy your cheap factory goods" relationship is to get both countries so deep into bed with one another's economies that war becomes impossible. I don't understand why it's posed as a problem that the Sino-American economic relationship makes war between the parties problematic - that's a feature, not a bug.

Moreover, there are other ways to pay for wars, than deficit borrowing. Take a look at the way the 1991 Gulf War was financed, for example: Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan and other countries providing cash, USA, etc. providing troops, and so on. Checkbook diplomacy is hardly a new phenomenon - and it's difficult to imagine a scenario of war between the USA and China where various stakeholders wouldn't have lots of incentive to help pay for American war expenditures (Japan, South Korea - heck, probably India). There's also, you know, taxes.


And if not, what can the Chinese [or Japan (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt)] do to enforce demilitarisation of the US?

Why does China - or whoever - need to "enforce demilitarization of the US?" Why don't other countries need demilitarization, at least in tandem? Why is the question limited to demilitarization of the USA, and not of the entire world?

Would it not actually be a bad thing if China was in a position to enforce demilitarization of the USA? I.e., Chinese global hegemony?

But the answer to your question is: nothing. There is nothing that anyone can do to force the US to demilitarize. And so attempts at such will mostly be counterproductive.

Ah, oops...by demilitarization, I thought you meant get rid of our professional military.

I think we should adopt a more universal, more domestic system that is for actual defense As opposed to creating employment and/or taking over other countries.

Taa-daah.

Something like the Swiss model.

As far as getting rid of our guns, not on my watch. Uh-huh.
Second amendment supporter and armed queer in a hostile environment here.

The US already has something like 91 guns per 100 people-we're the highest small-arms bearing country in the world. If you make guns illegal, you'll have home invasions every day in every major and minor city all over this country. Thugs will have them, people of goodwill won't-or at least will have them hid so they won't get arrested.
There's a very large hoodlum population here-our economic decline's been going on for a long time.

The horse is well and truly out of the barn as far as gun restrictions.

My pistol was made prior to WW2. Works great.

For example: Chinese investments in the US are over 2 trillion but can you identify them?

I do not think that's correct, unless you're counting t-bill holdings as "investments." In terms of actual FDI, China's investments are about 1/10 of the number you cite.

And well-known - they've made headlines repeatedly in the past few years over investments in the USA, as anything even remotely strategic triggers a Congressional review and associated press coverage and long, drawn-out grandstanding.


How many Americans are aware that Saudi Arabia might be outsourcing agriculture (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010050170980) to the US?

Most Americans are quite well aware that our abundance of food production makes us the elephant in the room in the global agricultural markets, and so expect such things to happen. Saudi Arabis is hardly the only country that buys our food, invests in the agricultural sector, etc. Japan's been doing that for decades. I'm frankly puzzled at the implication that anyone would be bothered by learning that a wealthy desert country needs us to feed them, and is willing to pay handsomely for such. What's supposed to be objectionable about that?

Seriously, the only time the world should demilitarize is if we achieve total world peace and if we also can prove that their are no aliens in existence that can reach earth. Without both we should not give up our guns, nor should we stop developing bigger and better ones.

The US could not demilitarize itself without being wiped out so we would not unless everyone else was willing to as well.

What kind of circumstances would lead to the complete demilitarisation of the United States?

Under what circumstances would Americans give up all their armed forces and institute laws which completely banned the use of weapons by civilians?

i.e. no army, no naval forces, no air force.

no chemical, biological, nuclear or regular armaments

no means of offense or defense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKqhqIN3Zc
(btw, Skynet was activated last month.)

You're making too much sense, Quad. Don't expect intelligent cogent replies.

~String

So Americans would not give up their weapons without being forced?

I think you have put it exactly.

The entire world must line up against us, and give us the choice.

I would plead the following: We have established ourselves as supreme—not just superior, but supreme—according to a worldview that we might (or might not) have exhausted. That is, we're playing according to a set of rules that may or may not be still in effect. We're gambling on the affirmative, because, in baseball phraseology, it's a numbers game.

No, really, ask any true follower or cricket or American baseball what that means.

You'll get a diverse answer.

Deal with it. Work within that range.

Thus, we have established ourselves, not simply as superior, but, as supreme. This is important, S.A.M.

Specifically, and bodlfaced to make the point: When we are superior in result, we are supreme in principle: ipso facto.

That's all it is.

The moral is the practical.

Please, understand. I know it's cynical, but it is also the basis for understanding how our collective functions as an individual. And that latter is a proposition most of my neighbors would reject.

(A note aside, because it raises certain issues both before and behind the curtain: Look, they give me you because, among your defenders, I am the one who can stilll sound coherent. I'm not about to tell you anything useful about that; it's just my turn. But, having laid that bare; that is, however—nothing you've proposed since #4, above (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2758783&postcount=4) applies—in truth, I lose it the farther I get from it, I can only promise you that you would do better for yourself to hold to the question quoted above.

The real challenge is that the leading edge of the advanced (i.e., civilized—e.g., morally superior) world should recognize the eventual outcome you prescribe.

I don't disagree.

It's just a long way, and several therapeutic "layers", such as they might be described, 'twixt then and now.

You're making too much sense, Quad. Don't expect intelligent cogent replies.

~String


yeah
sam is a bit of a mutt, aint she?

/commiserates

I do not think that's correct, unless you're counting t-bill holdings as "investments." In terms of actual FDI, China's investments are about 1/10 of the number you cite.

And well-known - they've made headlines repeatedly in the past few years over investments in the USA, as anything even remotely strategic triggers a Congressional review and associated press coverage and long, drawn-out grandstanding.



Most Americans are quite well aware that our abundance of food production makes us the elephant in the room in the global agricultural markets, and so expect such things to happen. Saudi Arabis is hardly the only country that buys our food, invests in the agricultural sector, etc. Japan's been doing that for decades. I'm frankly puzzled at the implication that anyone would be bothered by learning that a wealthy desert country needs us to feed them, and is willing to pay handsomely for such. What's supposed to be objectionable about that?

My answer was specifically made - although not with great clarity now that I review it - to Varda's comment


There is no separation of corporations and politics here.

Do you think US corporations would sell out the United States to foreign states and US politicians would be compliant in such a scenario? IOW, could US corporations be used by foreign states to ensure complicity from US politicians on matters of national interest to them - like demilitarisation of the US?


The real challenge is that the leading edge of the advanced (i.e., civilized—e.g., morally superior) world should recognize the eventual outcome you prescribe.


Well we have to start somewhere if we want to eventually live in a world free from violence. Looking at the larger picture, we've moved to a world stage where intimate and domestic violence is considered reprehensible but we still justify punitive violence by the community [cops] and state [soldiers]

So baby steps. And a drop of MLK: We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed

I kind of see the world gravitating to this, the way I saw the Arab street gravitating to revolution and Israel to a one state solution - I discussed both way before they were a reality. Some things just become inevitable when events are set in motion.

So Americans would not give up their weapons without being forced?

Well, let's go back a step and consider what a weapon is.

A weapon can be a knife, a gun, a baseball bat, a fork, a stick, a brick, a piece of glass, a bomb, etc. etc.

Nobody is ever going to give up all the things that might be used as weapons - mostly because things like knives are useful for other purposes, too.

Leaving that aside, you seem to be looking at this as America vs. the rest of the world. But most Americans say they want guns, for example, to protect themselves from other Americans, not from foreigners.

So, tackling your question again, I think I've changed my mind. Really what is needed for Americans to give up their weapons is for all Americans to become nice people who won't harm each other.

I'm not sure quite how you'd go about achieving that aim.


All of them, each and every one? Under what conditions would Americans be prepared to be completely defenseless where weapons were concerned?

Under conditions where nobody was afraid of being harmed by somebody else, I guess.

garcon!
target 35°18′29″S 149°07′28″E
go to defcon 1

:mad:

forget the details

/dismisses

the bottom line is if i hold so many of your iou's and you want me to continue issuing them, i can and should expect you to be fiscally responsible

Cables show China used debt holdings to press US (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-38wsWDlg6gksgnaXzkrOZQ0tGA)

like you pointed out, is it not what is demanded of others?




onward aryan warriors!
heil!

Sorry I missed your post somehow

This is fantastic!


Missouri Governor Jay Nixon acknowledged yesterday that he canceled his trip to Taiwan over concerns that it would impact his state's relations with China, U.S. media reported.

Nixon was scheduled to lead a trade mission from Dec. 10-16 to Taiwan and South Korea. In Taiwan, he was expected to sign a letter of intent under which Taiwanese businesses would commit to purchasing US$600 million of Missouri products, including corn and soybeans, according to a Dec. 1 statement from Nixon's office.

Nixon was also scheduled to meet President Ma Ying-jeou and Foreign Minister Timothy C.T. Yang during his planned stay, the statement said.

The governor was cited by an AP report as saying Thursday U.S. time that the trip was canceled because it could affect Missouri's efforts to make Lambert-St. Louis International Airport a trade hub for Chinese goods.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported yesterday that Nixon was forced to cancel the mission last week due to pressure from the Midwest China Hub Commission and the Chinese consulate.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1457674&lang=eng_news&cate_img=83.jpg&cate_rss=news_Politics_TAIWAN

So it is possible for foreign states to manipulate the US through its economy.

As I understand it, Chinese concerns were over US military aid to Taiwan:


Taiwan will never ask the United States to help fight a war, officials said on Monday in comments that could ease regional tension but shake views the island needs the world military superpower to battle China.

In a statement seen appeasing both Washington and Beijing, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou had told a visiting television reporter over the weekend that the island would stand up for itself, suggesting the United States was not obligated to send help and risk its own conflict with China.

Removing U.S. military aid from the equation would lower the odds of a prolonged conflict involving Taiwan despite its decades of political hostilities with China. That shift could firm market sentiment already buoyed by two years of detente and trade talks.

China claims self-ruled Taiwan as part of its territory and leads the island in military might, but the China-friendly president said on television he would "never ask the Americans to fight for Taiwan."

Washington, which had no immediate comment on the president's remarks, could decide on its own whether to help Taiwan, cabinet spokesman Johnny Chiang said on Monday following protests from Taiwan's anti-China main opposition party.

"The president is saying Taiwan is resolved to protect itself," Chiang told Reuters. "What he means is that he hopes he doesn't need to see the United States involved in any war."

The United States, Taiwan's staunchest ally and chief arms supplier, is bound by its 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to help defend the island but as it seeks better ties with Beijing has hedged on saying how far it would go in the event of a war.

Beijing, for its part, has dropped war threats against Taiwan as the two sides discuss trade and transit agreements, putting aside sovereignty disputes that have lingered since the Chinese civil war of the 1940s.

Taiwan still wants the United States to sell it advanced weaponry, Chiang said, despite inevitable protests from China.

Ma's statement has touched off debate in Taiwan, where much of the public assumed for decades the United States would send warships or other aid in the event of a conflict with China.

"Of course it has stirred up domestic debate and discussion," said Lin Chong-pin, strategic studies professor at Tamkang University in Taipei. "But we are so small, we can't dominate what the United States is doing or what Beijing is doing."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/03/us-taiwan-usa-idUSTRE6420UR20100503

Has this detente between China and the US affected arms delivery by the US to Taiwan?

This is kind of a confirmation of my views that debt can be a tool used not to inflame civil wars but to demilitarise societies [okay, its a stretch but still, it makes me optimistic]