Article

2005-12-10 International-UN-NGOs

US, China eye cooperation on Iraq, Iran Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2005-12-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It worries me how China has been buying our debt. I hope this all shakes out in a favorable light.

Posted by Jan 2005-12-10 01:03|| 2005-12-10 01:03|| Front Page Top

#2 The fact that China is buying our debt can be looked at a number of different ways.

Example, as a sign of deep distrust in the other coubtries ability to pay.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-12-10 08:27|| 2005-12-10 08:27|| Front Page Top

#3 I just hope that when America gets to a point where we "owe" China, that we aren't forced into any "imperial entanglements" so to speak. (As Obi Wan once said).
There is so much that I need to catch up on here.

Posted by Jan 2005-12-10 09:14|| 2005-12-10 09:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Cold War MAD gets new meaning: Mutually Assured Dependency. Chinese and American economies have become vitally dependent on each other, so military war becomes prohibitively (one hopes) expensive.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2005-12-10 10:36|| 2005-12-10 10:36|| Front Page Top

#5 The wiley Chinee are just making rational choices on investment. Consider Hugo's recent investment in Argentine debt for a different take.

Posted by Shipman 2005-12-10 11:51|| 2005-12-10 11:51|| Front Page Top

#6 economies have become vitally dependent on each other, so military war becomes prohibitively (one hopes) expensive

Sorry, but someone has to make this point-- The same idea was mooted about 1910-13 (Dreadnought, Massey). It also should be pointed out that the current bunch of thugs running china's economy are kind of fuzzy on the whole concept of fiduciary responsibility.

These clowns will go to war in a heart beat if they think their rule is seriously threatened, regardless of the consequences. (see Tienamen Sq., 1989) The only reason they haven't invaded Tiwan yet is that doing so would probably weaken their grip on power more than leaving it be--for now.

As for co-operation, we can expect only enough to keep the US from looking at Beijing as a potential target for a democratic revolution. Not a shred more.

China, and by extention other Tyranies and would be tyranies (France, Much of europe) ruled by small, semi-closed elites are in a mild panic now that the US has gotten into the exporting revolution and destabilization game. Or at least that is my opinion as to why parts of the world are so torqued about Iraq and the war on terror. They see that the fit at least part of the target description.

Sorry about the rant, but hey...

Posted by N guard 2005-12-10 12:43|| 2005-12-10 12:43|| Front Page Top

#7 yup - that's my diagnosis too, Nguard.

Posted by too true 2005-12-10 13:04|| 2005-12-10 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Fine rant NG, especially the part about exporting revolution game. :>

Posted by Shipman 2005-12-10 14:36|| 2005-12-10 14:36|| Front Page Top

#9 Sounds good to me, too, NGuard. Also, that China holds U.S. debt means that in extremis the U.S. could refuse to pay upon demand, which makes China's financial risk actually greater than ours... The cost in lost goodwill with the rest of the world would be ugly, but not so much as the actual financial cost to China, I imagine.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-10 20:23|| 2005-12-10 20:23|| Front Page Top

23:41 AzCat
23:13 gromgoru
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 gromgoru
23:00 gromgoru
22:57 CrazyFool
22:56 Slobodan Miloshevitch
22:55 mom
22:52 CrazyFool
22:39 Just About Enough!
22:29 mac
22:20 mac
22:12 jules 2
22:00 mac
21:53 Frank G
21:52 Frank G
21:51 Frank G
21:49 AzCat
21:43 Frank G
21:38 jpal
21:36 Frank G
21:33 Darrell
21:32 trailing wife
21:32 AzCat