[Kryfamid]

I suppose General Tso will beat us all down with his chicken.

[Adimonnna]

I'm sorry. Back down from what exactly?
Your blind hatred for Obama has made you take at face value an article from the EU Times. The what? Yeah, the EU Times. Go click on their other links and come back to us about Obama's planned invasion of Pakistan (hint, their other big headline is that Dominique Strauss Kahn claims that Putin planted the maid in his hotel. You can find that under the 'zionism' subsection of the illustrious EU Times.)
Pakistan is an unsavory ally of the US on the war on terror, that we have had to at times bring back in line, and who we have bombed with drone attacks, and whose sovereignty we have overlooked when going in for OBL.
I'm not sure how that counts as 'backing down' in your books.

So please explain in your own words, without rellying on the EU times, axactly what Obamas plans vis a vis Pakistan are, and what exactly he would thus 'back down' from after China's "threat".

Obama doesn't have a plan in Pakistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Or have you not figured that out yet?

[feannigvogten]

They won't fight us for Pakistan.

They will just foreclose on us.

[QwOpHGyZ]

Obama doesn't have a plan in Pakistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Or have you not figured that out yet?

Ahh. I see. Some more scintilating arguments from uspoliticsonline.
So someone posts an absolutely preposterous article, that is meat to the knee jerk obama haters who reflexively not only agree with the fabrication, but add on another layer. when called out on this they are enjoined with your deep deep thought that is the equivalent of calling Obama a doo doo head.
It's really great 'debating' with you guys

[Adimonnna]

Ahh. I see. Some more scintilating arguments from uspoliticsonline.
So someone posts an absolutely preposterous article, that is meat to the knee jerk obama haters who reflexively not only agree with the fabrication, but add on another layer. when called out on this they are enjoined with your deep deep thought that is the equivalent of calling Obama a doo doo head.
It's really great 'debating' with you guys

It's called observation, and common sense. Two things sadly lacking in association with the current, or previous resident of the white house.

[opergolon]

Our presence in Pakistan after OBL was killed is in question at this point. Why risk riling our financer in order to continue some pointless conflict there? If they want to fight India, let them. Why is it any of our business? It isn't. It's just that some british friends of ours are heavily invested in India and any conflict there would upset their bank accounts.

Boo hoo.

Time to leave Pakistan and let the Brits worry about it. They should've know entering the "I'll pat your back if you pat ours" deal they made with Cheney/Bush about Iraq was illegal.

We are spending way too much money in Pakistan now for zero reasons.

And as for China, I hear the West Coast is getting a lot of strange jet patrols on behalf of the US military. Seems they're worried about something over there? China and their pals Russia and their oil suppliers are just waiting for an excuse to ? the US. Best bet is to not give them one....stop bleeding ourselves to death in phantom skirmishes designed to do just that, come home, bolster the West and hunker down. We are like a big bully with a bad back. And our enemies know just where to kick us to bring us down and finish us off.

[Almolfuncomma]

I'm sorry. Back down from what exactly?
Your blind hatred for Obama has made you take at face value an article from the EU Times. The what? Yeah, the EU Times. Go click on their other links and come back to us about Obama's planned invasion of Pakistan (hint, their other big headline is that Dominique Strauss Kahn claims that Putin planted the maid in his hotel. You can find that under the 'zionism' subsection of the illustrious EU Times.)
Pakistan is an unsavory ally of the US on the war on terror, that we have had to at times bring back in line, and who we have bombed with drone attacks, and whose sovereignty we have overlooked when going in for OBL.
I'm not sure how that counts as 'backing down' in your books.

So please explain in your own words, without rellying on the EU times, axactly what Obamas plans vis a vis Pakistan are, and what exactly he would thus 'back down' from after China's "threat".

I was going to ask you the same thing, because as far as I know there is no plan for anything.

As for backing down, when Russia speaks Obama backs down, when China speaks Obama backs down, when Obama told Israel go back to the 67 border, he received a lecture and Obama backed down. When he's not backing down he's bowing to them. In fact he had total control of both houses of congress and he backed down on raising taxes. He backed down on closing Clubgetmo, he backed down on pulling all our troops out of Iraq. I could go on and on.

[opergolon]

Not that I find myself defending Obama in recent days, but it could be he's backing down from armed conflict because people are becoming jobless and homeless and healthcareless at exponential rates, and he has a budget to manage that is so deep in the red, courtesy of the "mystery-funded" Iraq and Af/Pak conflicts Bush/Cheney forced us into, that Obama simply knows we cannot afford to throw our weight around.

Why should we? We've been bullying people on behalf of our rich corporate interests for far too long. Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine some superpower other than us suddenly deciding it wants our agricultural region. And just moves in an takes it from us, bombs us, snipes our leaders, installs a puppet regime and just like that, we are no longer a sovereign nation.

We would HATE THAT. Why do we expect others to enjoy our "liberation"?

[Repwailia]

A lot scrap metal was sold to japan prior to WW2 and surprise they had enough metal to build a lot of military equipment afterward. Spain sure imported a lot of oil during WW2.

Some folks do favor the dollar over everything else.

The Chinese economy still depends on selling cheap crap to the U.S. and our paying them back for loans. Hostilities break out...the loan repayments are jeopardized and no cheap crap gets to be sold on our shores. So much for Chinese growth.

Sure, china for now depends up our consumers, but you can bet your ass they have big plans to pull up their 1.3 billion so as to do what we USED to do. To enrich the common folks, which builds up great economies. We will continue to enrich them, to help them out, as they conduct cyber theft and even cyber warfare with America. They are not our friends, and never will be. Instead they are playing us for chumps, and business is ok with that, as their bottom lines fatten up.

There is no doubt, for me, that we will one day be engaged in an all out war with china. It is inescapable, IMO, as I don't see human history deviating from what it always has been.

[opergolon]

Very good post Blue Doggy!

[Doctor-CTAC]

"China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

"President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to freeze oil exports to the United States and wage a "100-year war" if Washington ever tried to invade Venezuela."

FOXNews.com - Venezuela's Chavez Threatens U.S. War, Oil Embargo - U.S. & World China's threats ring just as hollow.

They need us as much as we need them.

[padlabtard]

"China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

China warns US against war with Pakistan | EUTimes.net

What is there to add?.. When the US will finally be cut down to size it will be remembered as the gratest agressor the world ever known.

Not much of a warning. Someone might even take it seriously if the Chinese had an actual strategic arsenal with first strike capability, which they don't. Chinese threats to our security are overblown and designed for a local/regional audience. In any case China's warning should have just about the same effect on US foreign policy as former Soviet threats. Somewhere between little and none.

[bitymnmictada]

There is no doubt, for me, that we will one day be engaged in an all out war with china. It is inescapable, IMO, as I don't see human history deviating from what it always has been.

I see us moving towards being a bought and paid for client state with our excellent military force serving as the foreign legion of China.

[Doctor-CTAC]

China does not have to deal with war vs the US. They can starve the US to death economically. By 2016, it IMF predicts that China economy will overtake that of the US.

The U.S. is China's number one export partner (by a very wide margin), she's also China's number four import partner (and a provider of technological imports China can't get anywhere else in the world).

Suggesting that China could, or would even want to, "starve the US to death economically" is dumb.

It's like you're arguing that the guy with $1.00001 billion could economically strangle the guy who only has $1 billion.

Nonsense.

[Poll Pitt]

There is no doubt, for me, that we will one day be engaged in an all out war with china. It is inescapable, IMO, as I don't see human history deviating from what it always has been.

the difference between now and in the rest of human history is that if there were now an all out war with china, it would literally destroy the entire world. that's why it will never happen.

[Lt_Apple]

I see us moving towards being a bought and paid for client state with our excellent military force serving as the foreign legion of China.

why would we do that?

we'd default first... that or send a carrier group to reclaim the TBills

besides, China has tons of their own problems to deal with.,... their economy is about to stall in a major way...

[Sniliabiz]

why would we do that?

we'd default first... that or send a carrier group to reclaim the TBills

besides, China has tons of their own problems to deal with.,... their economy is about to stall in a major way...

Last I checked China is still a communist country. As with any authoritarian government, they must either placate or distract their populous. This is meant to distract and appear strong.

OK. Let’s say China and Pakistan declare war on the US. So it’s WWIII. China would have North Korea which probably isn’t really an asset. They own Africa which would be blockaded. And in this scenario, religious extremists are allied with atheists. Not a great bond. But go ahead and have all the Arab spring countries already in turmoil.

Versus: USA, NATO (Europe), India, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Isreal, et al. Honestly, if the US just said that they wouldn’t accept debt from China, it would trickle out for pennies on the dollar and collapse the regime.

I’d argue that rattling sabers is usually for local consumption.

[bitymnmictada]

why would we do that?

Becasue politicians get to maintain the illusion of being a superpower to the voters, the military industrial complex gets to stay in business and revolution (really just major political change) can be thwarted with the blood of patriots being spent over seas.

[BluewayAllere]

China has always been a wanna-be world power since WWII

[P3bWjm1j]

This is just gorilla chest pounding and tough guy talk, is all it is.