Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

bush_cheney2004

Members
  • Content Count

    57,952
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    241

Posts posted by bush_cheney2004

  1. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

    I think every nation is trying it's up most to prevent a major confrontation with any world power... but US military leaders have turned on the red light when it comes to warning the government about Chinese actions .. and it continues to demostrate to china almost daily it really does not control anything , be it naval/ air  demonstration, and arming Taiwan

     

    U.S. military leaders have a lot more to worry about besides China, which can't project military power outside of its region for now, but will strive to do so in the future.   America's pivot to WESTPAC away from Europe strained EU and NATO relations, and Trump doubled down on the obvious with respect to deadbeats who rely too much on American military power.  The post WW2 Grand Bargain has run out of gas...the Soviet Union collapsed nearly 30 years ago.  Yet Canada insists that the American led "rules based order" of old must continue as before, even as the world changes around it, including the United States.

    Germany, France, and the UK have come to accept more responsibility for their own defense (at least in principle)...Canada is still wavering on this and several other fronts, paralyzed by internal politics and an impotent foreign policy that makes it more and more irrelevant.   China can smell this weakness, and will continue to exploit it.

    Canada has choices to make, including not making any choices at all.   Either way, the world will move on whether Canada continues to dither or not...we are used to it by now.

     

    • Thanks 1
  2. 5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    The 2 Michaels are nothing more than pawns in this game...any government MP will say a human life is not worth bils ....i do think it would not be a big leap for the US to lead the charge here, it is hard to not let US military policies and what they see as threats not to bleed into national policies, or practices...

     

    Canadian MPs may posture that way, but it is not the practical economic or geo-political reality.   Previous Canadian governments had the gravitas to deal with such situations to repatriate Canadian nationals...the Trudeau government has consistently underperformed in this arena.   One glaring example is the hesitancy to ban Huawei for 5G networks.

     

    Quote

    It seem a lot of the US military is being restructured for the pacific theater, marines getting rid of tanks, heavy armor, becoming lighter and faster, the navy is expanding, and the Air force is also shedding some capabilities to gain new ones...like the new 6 th generation fighter, already in the air, or so the rumor says...they all seem to be shedding heavy equipment and looking for lighter, more mobile stuff once again to be more suited with the new threat which is China...and it has been for atleast 10 years now...

     

    The U.S. is not going to engage China beyond defensive protocols for longstanding alliances in the region.   Japan is partnering with Indonesia as well, but not to attack China. Either way, Canada is in a very poor position to project air and naval power in the region regardless of such alliances. 

    The underlying theme remains the same...Canada has let itself go, and cannot expect other nations to pick up the slack.   China is going to remain and grow as an economic and military power/threat, and they will act in their national interest(s), same as western nations. 

     

     

     

  3. The EU has actually increased trade with China, overtaking the U.S. as the EU's # 1 trading partner early this year.    Anti-China sentiments in Canada are based on a political narrative over economic reality (e.g. "Two Michaels").   Other nations are not going to come to Canada's rescue as a trading bloc against China and their own interests.

    This may play well for domestic Canadian politics, but will not translate into structural change and counters for Chinese globalism, something it learned from the west...and learned very well.

     

     

    • Like 1
  4. There is no level playing field...ever...only different degrees of competition that seeks any and every advantage.   Hell, Canada is far more economically dominated and exploited by the U.S. than China, but this is far more acceptable because of history and geography ?  It certainly is not because the "playing field" was level, 'cause it ain't and will not be.

    Fundamentally, it comes back to Canada and what it wants to be when it grows up, regardless of China.   Falling back on alliances in the face of competition with more lame excuses for worker productivity, R&D, capital investment, exports dependencies, commodities, brain drain, provincial trade barriers, etc. will only continue the status quo.

     

     

  5. 5 hours ago, Right To Left said:

    As for Neoliberalism....supposedly when the Reaganites made "free trade" the buzz word of the 80's and 90's, all this shit like FTA which quickly morphed into NAFTA would benefit everyone and that's why there was a growing consensus of leaders around the world who joined the GATT and let's not forget the most obvious bullshit fraud of that time: "nations which trade openly with each other, don't go to war against each other." Good thing it all worked out so well!

     

    It did work out well...and the present Canadian government desperately seeks to cling to the post WW2 "rules based order" that Trump threatened to undermine by withdrawing American military and economic power from the free trade "fraud".   Before this, "Axis of Evil" membership was created for those nations that purposely threatened neoliberal and neocon foreign policy / economic frameworks.   Canada could not offer much in the way of raw power, but it could develop human rights R2P,  honest brokering, and a commensurate "seat at the table" secondary role to other (more powerful) allies.

    This is not the first time the Americans had upset the status quo, as Richard Nixon's administration had previously done so by leaving Bretton Woods (Switzerland and West Germany had already done so) in favour of floating fiat currencies and  continued U.S. dollar hegemony “to create a new prosperity without war.”   But the wars would continue anyway, for the usual reasons.

  6. 14 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

     Main difference between the two is that Neocon is close to fascism in its desires to use military to project power and enforce its economic doctrines...especially on trade terms. While the neoliberal is mostly concerned with having a fire sale in government functions and responsibilities.

     

    No, both rely on a backstop of raw military and economic power, no matter how different the narrative(s) may be...to not only sustain foreign policy objectives, but to remain in a position to do so at any time when desired.   Both the Clinton neoliberals and Bush neocons said to hell with the UN and pressed on with their agenda using military and economic power....because they could.  

    Raw American power projection ultimately stems from economic power, and it has always been thus.   Those without such power have to settle for the language of a lesser god.

  7. 2 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

    7 countries in five years, indicates that...according to Clark, premeditated regime change plans were already well under way at least as far back as just after the Afghanistan Invasion. The planners were intending to reorder the Middle East to their liking, and by their leftovers it would indicate that they didn't really care about what was left behind in the aftermath!

     

    General Clark already discredited himself after NATO's Kosovo War, and R2P was never an American doctrine, as it superseded sovereignty by definition.   Canada jumped all over R2P with like minded allies that lacked the military and economic power to enforce "human rights", another parallel doctrine that gained strength after WW2.   Michael Ignatieff built a career on the R2P narrative in politics and academia.

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was neocon doctrine (Bush), not neoliberal (Clinton).  Libya was an Arab Spring civil war domino, and it was the French and British who led UN/NATO actions against Gadaffi before the Americans (Obama) reluctantly agreed to join the UN no-fly zone and "human rights" military campaign with "unique" American capabilities.

    R2P and "human rights" have consistently been drafted as cover stories for many such interventions, because that is what they are designed to do.   Economic sanctions are tried initially, but often fail to achieve the desired results (regime change) fast enough or at all.  Capital and markets do not work in unison for R2P objectives, and are explicitly flexible enough to bypass and undermine such things.

  8. 13 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

     before Clinton Admin policy advisers crafted a "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine, and declared that since the UN Security Council was always divided, NATO had the "responsibility" to step in and carry out the R2P agenda wherever needed in the world...sovereign nations be damned!

     

    Nope....R2P was not developed by the Clinton administration as policy doctrine.   NATO's action during the Kosovo War (1999) was to force Serbia/Milošević back to peace negotiations.   Clinton acted to protect U.S. interests, not R2P.

    Canada, the ICISS, and African Union has far more to do with formally crafting such a policy to counter sovereignty claims, even without the capacity to enforce it.   Chretien (Canada) had previously failed to convince Clinton to intervene in Rwanda and provide the armour/heavy airlift to do so, as Canada had neither.

    • Like 1
  9. 30 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Foreign nationals (both white of course) arrested arbitrarily for reasons of political tit-for-tat is a pretty big deal.  China has shown it's willing to use arrests as leverage in international relations.

    I find it probable they are both spies who were on China's radar, but it still ups the game either way.

     

    Even if that was the case, Canada's current government failed to act decisively with retaliatory measures, and would/could not cut a deal.   There is no reason for China to alter its behaviour when the consequences from Canada are impotent and laughable.   Meng is and always was small potatoes, certainly no more important than Conrad Black or Omar Khadr.   Even her extradition hearings are taking forever.

     

    Quote

    I don't see a huge problem speaking out over atrocities and exerting pressure.  Everyone gets their hands dirty sometimes including Canada/US but other countries should call out others on their BS.  It certainly bothers China otherwise they wouldn't retaliate.

     

    If that is all Canada has to offer up, then it can expect commensurate results.   Yapping about "atrocities" and human rights so many times while being complicit in similar behaviours at home and abroad will never, ever change China's policy.   It has to cost a lot more than a finger wagging scolding from Parliament and a minority government that abstained from the vote.

    Gonna mobilize "allies" against China ?   Not with such impotent,  half-assed measures and weak Trudeau leadership.    Until something changes, Canada is just another chew toy to China.

  10. 26 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    I guess we'll see.  A lot of Canadians are low on China now, especially with the "two Michael's" stuff.

     

    The "two Michaels stuff" is a political side show with no significant lasting impact in the larger scheme of things.   Hell, there are far more Canadians locked up in the U.S., Canada's "most important ally".   There fate does not form the foundation of a lasting policy change either way.   

    Quote

    We're not talking about virtue.  We're talking pure power politics, national security, and a new Cold War.  Masses of people won't boycott CHinese goods because of Uyghurs, but they'll do it if the CCP is an existential threat to their countries, which they're slowly becoming.  Nazi Germany 2.0.  Trump didn't rightfully ban Tik Tok and Hauwei for virtue or economics.

     

    Good...then Canada should stop talking about the virtues of "human rights" and other neoliberal bullcrap that has little influence on China, and has been used to criticize Canada and the West in like fashion.  

    The Chinese are first and foremost pragmatists with little patience for the virtue signaling pablum that many in Canada value so dearly even as their lunch is being eaten.   China respects power, not weakness...so maybe start there...at home.

     

    • Like 1
  11. 10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Our politicians have failed us, they sold us out long ago, and this is a result.  The only ones who can fix things is the people, by pressuring our politicians, and by voting with your dollars.  I have already been boycotting all electronics and software made by Chinese companies, and will probably extend by boycotts.  Hauwei IT products are still allowed to be bought and sold in Canada LOL.

     

    Too late for that, and Canada gets more excited and organized about boycotting American products like Heinz ketchup than Chinese electronics or a myriad of other goods.  And even if you did, Chinese parts are now more integrated into global supply chains and products than anything Canada could fathom to boycott anyway.

    Frankly, it was easier to get Canadians to hate Trump (and his base) than the Chinese government....very ironic since it was Trump that challenged China while the peanut gallery did mostly nothing but business as usual, including Canada.

    Economics trumps virtue...as always.

     

     

    • Like 2
  12. 1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Meanwhile Canada has really cheap drugs and Americans flock here to buy them.

     

    Canada still imports most of the drugs, and can't even develop and manufacture its own covid vaccine doses even under license, taking from third world nations (COVAX) instead.

  13. 1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Link?

     

    Seriously ?   OK...here is one of many "links"...

     

    Quote

    Successive Liberal governments, including this one, have created an unfavourable environment for investment and commercial success for innovative pharmaceutical companies in Canada. They have made it very difficult for Canadian CEOs to attract investment to Canada despite many attempts by the industry to work with governments to do so. They have made no effort to work with the innovative industry to encourage a partnership that could deliver tremendous value to the health-care system and the economy and give Canadians early access to new medicines and vaccines.

    https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-why-were-not-doing-better-on-covid-vaccines

     

    • Like 1
  14. 9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    A lack of government regulation is what led to Canada's inability to create vaccines because market efficiencies meant vaccine company facilities left.  The only thing that would bring back facilities is if a company chose to build one due or government built one.

     

    Quite the opposite...it was government decisions and regulation that led to the departure of large scale vaccine development and manufacturing in Canada, which use to be a world leader in such things.   Now Canada's government struggles to even meet domestic needs with foreign resources, let alone the exports of old.

  15. 6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Rethinkining could simply mean what it has always meant:  government regulation to protect consumers and the environment etc, and different taxes or other measures to redistribute some of the wealth that the wealthy have to the non-wealthy.

     

    This is the kind of thinking that lead to Canada's third world status for covid vaccine development, testing, and manufacturing.    Big Pharma just gave Canada the bird.

     

    Quote

    The problem with a non-market economy is that nobody has ever figured out how to do it in a way that is anywhere near as productive or efficient as a market economy.

     

    Correct...and make no mistake here...government depends on the market economy for tax revenue, employment, development, etc.

  16. 4 hours ago, cannuck said:

    For structural reform to work, we need to accomplish two things: reduce government to the job of legislating, regulating and enforcing - WITHOUT granting any special privilege to ANYONE - and stop the shift in economic efforts from productive work (that creates wealth) to speculative gain (that DOES NOT create any wealth - just inflation).

     

    Good luck with that...governments are some of the biggest hogs in the casino...local, provincial, and federal...in equity and bond markets.   And on top of that, government retirement and wealth redistribution Ponzi schemes are heavily invested in the casino to finance future entitlements.   So no, government will not be reduced to your expectations...ever.

    • Like 1
  17. 3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

    Are there any Eastern European nations today from the Baltics down to Bulgaria and Macedonia, where the only people left are old pensioners after 30 years of young people fleeing to at least find work in England and the EU countries?

     

    Canadians, Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians....all "flee" to the U.S. to find work as well.

    • Like 1
  18. 3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

    The "Big Dog" is going to leave us all observing mushroom clouds rising on the horizon!

     

    This is by design...Canada is not part of the club, but still depends on the Big Dog's nukes.  China and the DPRK also has Canada reconsidering its decision not to join ballistic missile defense.

     

    Quote

    Well, things are somewhat different now, but China may have been acting on pragmatism up till now, by refusing to join America's military spending arms race. But now that they are investing billions in new weapons and increasing their size, it looks like you warhawks may finally be getting the war you've always wanted to justify a return to Reagan era military madness!

     

    Reagan's "madness" is very much appreciated in Eastern Europe.  U.S. defense spending is at historical lows as a percentage of GDP.    And unlike China's concerns over India and U.S. allies in the region, the U.S. is not faced with a credible military threat from Canada or Mexico, which can't even defend themselves.

×
×
  • Create New...