Inventing the Chinese Threat

Inventing the Chinese Threat

John Glaser,  August 17, 2012



                                    “Since the disappearance of the
Soviet Union,” writes James Dobbins at RAND Corp., “China has become
America’s default adversary, the power against which the United States
measures itself militarily, at least when there is no more proximate
enemy in sight.”

I know what you’re thinking: What has China ever done to us? What
villainous offense have they committed to our well-being or our
interests? It can’t possibly be the case that China is our “default
adversary” just because the Soviet Union is gone, can it?



Well, yes it can. As Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and
retired four-star general, said about the fall of the Soviet Union,
Washington was remorseful that we “lost our best enemy.” The system –
the “whole structure,” Powell explained, “depended on there being a
Soviet Union that might attack us.” He said Mikhail Gorbachev sat
across the table from him at the time and said apologetically “Ah,
General, I’m sorry, you’ll have to find a new enemy.”

When people in Washington and their surrogates in the mass media
punditry crow about our other trumped up threat, they at least have a
laundry list of alleged transgressions. You know the list: they
support terrorism, they want to wipe Israel off the map, they’re
secretly building nuclear weapons, they killed US soldiers invading
and occupying neighboring Iraq, etc. With China, there is no such
list. China’s mere existence as anything other than a vassal state is
the major transgression. As James Holmes has written in the National
Interest, China “presents the sternest ‘anti-access’ challenge of any
prospective antagonist.” In other words, they resist US
interventionism and military presence. China is gaining power and
influence, which ought to be solely American prerogatives, as far as
Washington is concerned.

This is the reasoning behind President Obama’s strategic shift into
Asia-Pacific, announced by the administration last year. This
so-called ‘Asia pivot’ is an aggressive policy that involves surging
American military presence throughout the region – in the Philippines,
Japan, Australia, Guam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. – and backing
basically all of China’s rivals.

More than that, the Pentagon is drawing up new plans to prepare for an
air and sea war in Asia. “As part of the Air-Sea Battle concept,”
reports Military.com, the US is refurbishing old WWII bases, looking
“to disperse its air forces stationed at its handful of major bases in
the western Pacific in the event of a major conflict with China.”

Source: BBC


The idea is to have enough US bases peppered throughout the region so
that China would be too surrounded to safely attack. “Doing so would
make it more difficult for China to wipe out entire squadrons sitting
on the ground with surprise attacks from its long range ballistic
missiles.”

Chinese officials have not appreciated this unprovoked bellicosity. In
May the Chinese Defense Ministry accused the Pentagon of hyping a
Chinese military threat out of thin air. Others have said these
Pentagon moves could start an arms race. “If the U.S. military
develops Air-Sea Battle to deal with the [People’s Liberation Army],
the PLA will be forced to develop anti-Air-Sea Battle,” one officer,
Col. Gaoyue Fan, said last year in a debate sponsored by the Center
for Strategic and International Studies.
“Some Asia analysts worry that conventional strikes aimed at China
could spark a nuclear war,” according to the Washington Post. Other
“critics see a dangerous tendency toward alarmism that is exaggerating
the China threat to drive up defense spending.”

“While China’s overall military capabilities will not equal those of
the United States anytime soon,” Dobbins puzzlingly warns, “it will
more quickly achieve local superiority in its immediate neighborhood,
first in and around Taiwan and then at somewhat greater distances.”

To continue: Take your chance and click link if you have the you know
what's to do so .

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/08/17/inventing-the-chinese-threat/

Installing a soul into a soulless nation

Talking about soul searching, a Sinkie soul? Do we have a soul in the first place when everything is about money and profitability? Sinkies will sell father and mother and country just for money, or when they think it is a profitable thing to do.

Some were reminding the Sinkies about our immigrant past, about how our forebears came to this little island to make a home and a country. Reflecting and remembering the past, knowing the history, are good. At least they tell you where you came from, where it started and how it started. Knowing history is one thing, learning from the valuable lessons of history is another. And the dangerous part is learning the wrong thing from history is unforgiveable.

When the wise men reminded the Sinkies of their immigrant roots, they are telling the conventional wisdom of welcoming the new immigrants like welcoming their forebears, to justify the influx of immigrants. What they have forgotten were the conditions when our forebears arrived and how our forebears fought to own this piece of rock that we now call home, our country. Maybe there was too little struggle, too little bloodshed, that there was not enough pain to treasure the ownership of this piece of rock. It was given on a silver platter.

But don’t be deceived by the ease of independence and becoming owners and masters of our own land. It could turn the other way and taken away from us. And our forebears could have been abandoned or cast into the sea as refugees. Do not take for granted our independence and ownership of this island.

And don’t be silly to think that we own a continent to be shared with everyone and anyone. We don’t have enough to round. We cannot accommodate the world and neither would the world want to accommodate us. We can be generous to being foolish. To give away something so precious and dear to us and ended being flotsams one day when we are not careful and be cast away, and become refugees with no homes. No country will open their legs willingly to be screwed by foreigners. Try applying to Timbuktu and see if you are welcomed?

A people without a soul would not appreciate what is the meaning of a country, and being citizens of a country. We sell everything for quick profits. We give our citizenships freely thinking that it is good, in the short term, without looking further than the tip of our nose. There is a time to be selective, to be selfish, to protect ourself, our own people, instead of prostituting ourselves thinking that that is the only way of survival. We are not a continent like America or Australia that we can accommodate everyone when the reality is that not many people would want to share their home and land and prosperity with us.

Now, what soul are we talking about? A generous soul of sharing everything we have with everyone? Big hearts huh? Can we afford to do that? Many cannot afford to own cars, no space to build bicycle lanes, not enough land to build flats that don’t cost a hand or a leg. Not enough water, energy, no land for farming and producing food. And we want more and more people to share and squeeze with us in this piece of rock.

A major world crisis in energy, in food, drought or flood, recession etc will plunge us into the abyss in no time if we have too big a population to feed. We are not self sufficient in anything. Our money will not be much use in a real crisis when money becomes just a piece of paper.

Put up Sentosa for sale. After all with 2m foreigners in a 5.4m population here, it is as good as they buying up 2/5 of the island, in a way. Easy come easy go. We got this island easy and can give it away easy as well.

One good reason to welcome more foreigners

As a small country, we need to trade with everyone to survive. We need free trade and open skies to trade freely, to move freely. It is a quid pro quo thing. We let your goods in, you let our goods in, no taxes.

This same principle is applicable to recognition of university degrees. You recognize our degrees we recognize yours. And if we let your people come here freely, work here freely, live here freely, the same must be reciprocated.

Now Sinkies, please understand this logic. Our island is so small, so cram. Would it not be nice to be able to live in big countries with a lot of land? Let the people of the world come here freely and we move to their countries freely as well. They can come and buy and live in our HDB flats and we be allowed to move to their countries, buy land and build landed properties. Those bigger countries would have no problem or feel insecure to welcome us. Would this be good? Would it be good to live in big countries where properties are cheap, cars are cheap and lifestyle slow and easy?

And when we recognize their degrees, their doctors and lawyers and engineers can practice here, so can our professionals practice in their countries. Imagine Sinkies can go anywhere and work and practice anywhere. Imagine we are welcome everywhere. And we can rent out our HDB flats, collect the rentals, and live in landed properties in other countries. And those from other countries come and live in our small little flats, pay us a lot of money to live in their countries. That would be really nice. The world is our oyster!

Imagine all the people in the world, living in peace and harmony. But I am just a dreamer, and I am not the only one.

The days of the Miserables…lawyers

Who do you think lawyers? Are we seeing the days of the miserable lawyers and the legal profession? Or things will go on as normal? The respect and high regards for the legal profession and the learned counsels, will it be tainted or will it continue to glow and shine?

I think it all depends on the outcome of the EGM and whether the legal eagles find it important enough to even attend this EGM. Would the 50 calling for the EGM be the voices in the wilderness and abandon by their colleagues in the profession? Will they be the only 50 members present?

Alienation of the leadership

There was a time when aspiring leaders will shout, follow me, and jump into the deep end of any crisis to face the bullets first. Leadership is by leading, by setting examples, by telling and doing what leaders expect the followers to do. When leaders lead by examples, the followers will follow all the way. When leaders say charge, and they stand behind to watch, who is going to charge, who is going to be the idiot to be shot first? Only the soldiers can do that.

When leaders eat rice, the men eat rice. When the men eat porridge or gruel, the leaders too did the same. That is what leadership is all about, be with the people, share wealth and toil, share joy and woes. The men will not mind if the leaders have rice and they have porridge or gruel. It would be something else when the leaders have meat and fish and the men have only plain gruel. Got it?

When leaders demand to be paid in the millions and told the people it is alright to live with $1k pm. When leaders demand to live in 20k sq ft properties and build smaller and smaller flats for the people, and tell the people to live within their means, I think you got a problem.

When leaders declare that wide income gap is normal and the wider the gap the more normal it is, you got a bigger problem. There is a big gap, a credibility gap. The daft followers will continue to follow blindly. They are not daft for no reason. But not many are daft, and not many will remain daft all the time.

Serve NS to protect what? To protect the huge properties and wealth of leaders, or their little shoe box flats? Heard or pragmatism? Or nothing of their own to protect since they don’t even own a little flat to cover their heads? Only daft Sinkies will protect other people’s wealth and well being when their well beings don’t mean anything to those they are protecting. Does this make sense or so difficult to understand? What is an aspiration? A belief that is good to believe in only, a make belief.

Is there a connect, or a credibility gap between the leaders and the led? Do the leaders lead by setting good examples that the people will die for, or to die for an aspiration? Is everyone is part of a bigger whole, everyone feels that they are part of a bigger entity called nation and country?

Maybe the people don’t mind living within their means and dying for their great leaders bathing in wealth and glory. After all they have been told to know and accept their lesser stations in life.

Racism in Singapore

Recently the outcry against racism is getting louder. Many, even a minister, are raising issues of racism openly. Yes, there are incidents of racism in this island and there is nothing to hide, or better to sweep them under the carpet. The case of this elderly man berating his Indian neighbour for unpleasant smell, unhygienic lifestyle, and turning his flat into a squalor, has been given special prominence by the minister in his Facebook posting. What is the intent of the minister, to prove that there is racism, to use this as an issue in the national dialogue or to say that racism exists in little pockets in the society?

Short of saying that this elderly man’s IQ or EQ is suspect, that he did not find anything wrong complaining to Minister Shanmugam who is obviously an Indian, I just dunno what to say. With such a strange behavior from an elderly man, it is equally strange to trump this as a good example of racism. And the case only helps to confirm the mindset of those who see racism as a big issue in this island. And some took the opportunity to beat drums and gongs to the screams of, hear, hear, there is racism in Sinkieland.

And the drum and gong beaters are raising their pitch higher, which is very unfortunate. No one in his right mind will deny that there is racism here and everywhere in the world. It is a matter of degree and seriousness. No one will accept the racial slurs by the elderly man even he if he is not the average Sinkie man one encounters in the island and thus not excusable.

The point is this, is racism really a big issue in the island? Since 1969, has there been any racially incited conflict or killings, of people being attacked physically or verbally abused in public because of race? There were a handful of racist postings in the blogs by some hot young men and they were immediately taken to task by the police. And these were about the most serious incidents of racial discrimination one could find. It is quite embarrassing really.

What more can you ask for? For those who believe that this island is a racist place populated by a racist majority victimizing the minorities, why not choose a country that has a more pleasant environment where different races live in better harmony than in this little island? No we are not perfect, but trying to.

Yes, I am offended as a Sinkie. I seeing more accusation and agitation of racism in this country I called home. And no, I am not saying that there is no racism, but when they manifest, they are so mild and so few in between to warrant the sounding of a tsunami coming. There are bound to be a few bad hats in all communities. But the bad hats here don’t beat up people or shoot people with guns. This is Singapore, a multi culture and racial city state with no equals in the world as far as race relations is concerned.

Sinkies should feel offended when people keep harping about racism in the city and tell the racist off. Only racists go around seeing everything racist using their racist lens.

Attack the complainant and miss the complaint

The elderly gentleman was complaining about his neighbour because he was Indian. Any insinuation? No, this elderly gentleman must be a racist at heart. Right or wrong?

By the way, what was he complaining about? Bad smell, dirty habits, and what else? Now that the focus is on this elderly man, what happen to his complaints? Were his complaints valid and need to be addressed? HDB flats are homes to the ordinary Sinkies, not a farm or pig sty for pigs. The residents deserved to have a clean and healthy environment, no dirty and smelly neighbours and neighbours clogging up the walkways or turning their flats into health or fire hazards. No IMH patients running around abusing or threatening the neighbours with physical harm.

While the complainant now has been turned into a villain, a racist, it could be easier to accept his complaints as valid if he is not so dense to keep repeating the fact that the neighbour was from a different race but just about the problems. Then his complaints may be accepted and dealt with. In this case everyone forgot about the reasons for the complaints.

A similar case was Sylvia Lim raising the disquiet in Woffle’s case in Parliament. She was questioned and intimidated as if she was the wrongdoer. Is this the proper way to deal with a complainant, a messenger or a whistle blower? It is like killing the messenger of bad news to avoid hearing more bad news. Divert the attention from the issue and make the complainant the problem.