maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0312231402.320e91f@posting.google.com>...

maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0312220225.29777d92@posting.google.com>...

maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0312210231.73685dfa@posting.google.com>...

ychen@bmwe30.net (Yaofeng) wrote in message news:<e89d1e3e.0312201935.1657a753@posting.google.com>...

maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0312200339.7bdff741@posting.google.com>...

The China Threat?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/opinion/20KRIS.html
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The growing nationalism that the Chinese government has cultivated
among its young people may be more worrisome than its nuclear arsenal.

nationalism
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nationalism&sa=N&tab=gn

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nationalism&sa=N&tab=nw

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nationalism&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=nationalism&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en

Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6

A Blueprint for the Future
http://tinyurl.com/t8i2

If you conduct a survey of people around the world, US would win hands
down on being a threat.

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military
control of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and
his comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world.

Isn't this the same Bush foreign policy we see today? So what can one
say about The US Threat?

So when did Bush realize that expansion of political and miltary
control of foreign territory or resources is an inferior aim?

From day 1 when GW Bush put Rumsfeld in charge to redeploy. Remember
Rumsfeld's "single theater readiness policy"? US foreign policy aim,
under American Enterprise Institute's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
thesis is based on ability to project American sovereignty, not
necessarily occupation or political control.

Look at Iraq, how much pain there is under occupation? Why is US
official now giving Iraqi oil concessions back to Russia now
protracted occupation is proving difficult? Political control is not
even an issue, when leaders don't cooperate, just take them out with
overwhelming force.

Look at all the cheap, below OPEC pricing oil, made available to US
all these years because of military control of producing territory?
Should I recite the list again?

But the point is that it's still an inferior aim. It creates more
trouble than it's worth.

But the point is current US foreign policy aim is not about "political
and military control of foreign territory or resources but, rather,
the spread of their influence to other "hearts and minds" around the
world".

If current US foreign policy aim is military control for foreign
territory, Rumsfeld wouldn't have cut back on military and reduce
deployment to single theater. If current US foreign policy is
protracted occupation of Iraq, Bush wouldn't be offering Russia oil
concession right now.

Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0306050321.214fd86%40posting.google.com

In article <ev8fuvk0ss9lb5edvp3crfq7a4jbcc3kq0@Pern.rk>, Al Klein wrote:

On 22 Dec 2003 06:03:36 -0800,

No, we are projecting our image, exerting our influence and protecting
our interests all over the world. Expansion and threat are not the
right words to use.

Threat is the wrong word to use when we threaten other nations? Why?
Because it makes us look as bad as we really are?

What the hell does this got to do with alt.atheism???