The Plan, not a "theory"

[OrnotBitwise]

So you fully defend the new world order. It is a plan and it's bad.

Corporate interests are portraying the conclusions you present as the "the only option", but they're not. If you're concerned about competing with china, maybe you should advocate NOT giving them billions of dollars in orders. We don't HAVE to condone slave labor by accepting it's products in the world market. We would not accept an apartheid south africa, so we punished them with trade sanctions, and it worked. Business, like all else in life, should also be conducted within a moral framework.

The borders of nations have always functioned to protect the resources of a nation for the people controlling that land; jobs are a resource too. You're advocating flooding our nations with millions of mexican workers, driving wages to rock bottom levels, simply because that's what CORPORATIONS want. The people have the right to the traditional protections of a functioning border. You do not have the right manipulate the human population because it benefits the bottom line.

We don't have to trade with china. They are fascist and totalitarian; our trade support of them is an abomination. Attempting to compete with china will drive the whole world into slavery, but that's the plan, isn't it?

So you can take your one sided view, and your personal insults, and shove them straight up your noahide ass.

The New World Order actually sounds better than the alternative you present.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The New World Order actually sounds better than the alternative you present.

The alternative of countries pursuing their interests in shifting alliances for mutual self betterment, on various issues, as independant sovereign nations? Like now and all of history?


Free enterprise, specialization, comparative advantage, all those concepts have value in the context of business, but these economic ideas shouldn't be implemented to the extent that our interests are harmed in other dimensions. For instance, allowing jobs to follow cheap labor to a degree is fine, but to the extent that it rewards slave labor and prices non slave nations out of the market it should be avoided. It is a decision we make as a society to make crime not pay. Otherwise, crime does pay. Justifying crime on the basis that it pays is typically the act of a no-good-nik, a criminal. Is it true that if you erode the morality of everyone, it makes everything ok, by comparison? Is this ultimate endpoint of satanic moral relativism? Should we step off the path to Satanic Enslave or HOE (Hell On Earth)?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The New World Order actually sounds better than the alternative you present.

What do you dislike most about what I've indicated? Functioning borders? Maintaining some production capacity on principle, just because depending on military enemies for goods could be a conflict of interest?

[uscitizen]

No, I do not believe so uscit....there is no goal to rule the world....unless of course you are talking about a very few nutzoid ones imo...but at leat in the largest church in the world, they want no part of it....that was their WORST PERIOD, been there, done that.... nothing like that is preached in Church, or it never was back when I went...

There are some church folk that have gotten involved in politics and have made a deal with the devil, but those are just non Christians to me...they follow nothing that Christ taught, they are mean people, I've never seen anything like it...but like I said, these people sold their souls to the Devil and do not practice Christianity....even if it appears that they do on the surface.... and they are the ones that have given TRUE CHRISTIANS a bad name...imo.

Here in KY there is a "Republican Christian Church".
hmmm


anyway, when I was imprisioned in church, they taught that we would conqueor the world, with conversions not cannons. This is what I am talking about. those people genuine believed that. This was/is the denomination of Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Here in KY there is a "Republican Christian Church".
hmmm


anyway, when I was imprisioned in church, they taught that we would conqueor the world, with conversions not cannons. This is what I am talking about. those people genuine believed that. This was/is the denomination of Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert

But their dollars proudly go to the military industrial complex which uses violence to open markets and control resources. That's not christian.


Their overt message of spreading their faith by merely spreading exposure to it, is just an optimism in their message. Nothing sinister there. The sinister is those who seek to suppress religious speech.

[Said1]

The new world order is going to be great! Seriously, has anyone seen the brochure? You get a free time-share in Florida and it's not like the 'other' time-shares either, you can count on that.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you fully defend the new world order. It is a plan and it's bad.

Corporate interests are portraying the conclusions you present as the "the only option", but they're not. If you're concerned about competing with china, maybe you should advocate NOT giving them billions of dollars in orders. We don't HAVE to condone slave labor by accepting it's products in the world market. We would not accept an apartheid south africa, so we punished them with trade sanctions, and it worked. Business, like all else in life, should also be conducted within a moral framework.

The borders of nations have always functioned to protect the resources of a nation for the people controlling that land; jobs are a resource too. You're advocating flooding our nations with millions of mexican workers, driving wages to rock bottom levels, simply because that's what CORPORATIONS want. The people have the right to the traditional protections of a functioning border. You do not have the right manipulate the human population because it benefits the bottom line.

We don't have to trade with china. They are fascist and totalitarian; our trade support of them is an abomination. Attempting to compete with china will drive the whole world into slavery, but that's the plan, isn't it?

So you can take your one sided view, and your personal insults, and shove them straight up your noahide ass.

First of all, this is not about us being able to trade with China. Until Richard Nixon normalized relations, we didn't trade with China, and the world didn't end. And it's not about just competing with China, there are a number of competitors in a global market. I understand your liberal knee-jerk concerns for the poor people enslaved in China, but honestly, many of the deplorable human rights issues have been resolved, since becoming trade partners with the US. No, it's not completely gone, China is not the model country, and people are still not being treated fairly in China, but really, unless you want to go to war with China and stop it, there isn't a lot we can do.

You suggest not trading with them, but we didn't trade with them before Nixon, and it didn't fix the problem. It's like the Cuban Embargo, we aren't helping the Cubans by refusing to trade with Castro. Through a strong trade alliance, we have actually been able to lobby the Chinese government to moderate its position on human rights, and this is more than we've ever been able to achieve there before.

Still, the NWO isn't just about China, or trade with China, or slave labor. It's about market competitiveness in a global economy. It's about alliances of strong economies, and the power of such alliances in a global market. If we isolate ourselves from this, we will naturally slide down the slippery slope to economic disaster, because we can't compete with China, or the EU. In many areas, our trade with China actually helps to drive the price of goods up on the market, because of our buying power alone, it's supply and demand.

I'll explain what I mean with an example. Let's say China makes bluejeans and sells them for $2 a pair, netting a nice 100% profit over their cost of $1. The US agrees to buy their jeans at $4 a pair, if they observe international laws concerning the treatment of the people working in the jean factory. China agrees, and sells us their $1 jeans for $4 a pair... we put fancy tags on the pocket and sell them to the French for $200 a pair... everyone is happy! But the most important thing is, the flood of $2 jeans on the market from China, never happens, we bought their stock. Now, Levis and Wrangler can sell jeans on the market at $4 a pair, and compete with the Chinese in the global market.

This is a rather crude and simple example, but it demonstrates the concept of establishing trade alliances, and the NWO you so fear. It's not some diabolic plot to control the world, it's not some cartel of the wealthy trying to gain more power, it is the vision and idea for keeping America competitive in the global market place for years to come.

We simply can't stand in the world market with our hands on our hips, demanding these countries conform to our mandates, they don't have to, and we can't make them, unless we are willing to go to war.... which we're not. So, our objective becomes, how do we handle this so our economy doesn't collapse and our trade deficit doesn't continue to grow?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

First of all, this is not about us being able to trade with China. Until Richard Nixon normalized relations, we didn't trade with China, and the world didn't end. And it's not about just competing with China, there are a number of competitors in a global market. I understand your liberal knee-jerk concerns for the poor people enslaved in China, but honestly, many of the deplorable human rights issues have been resolved, since becoming trade partners with the US. No, it's not completely gone, China is not the model country, and people are still not being treated fairly in China, but really, unless you want to go to war with China and stop it, there isn't a lot we can do.

You suggest not trading with them, but we didn't trade with them before Nixon, and it didn't fix the problem. It's like the Cuban Embargo, we aren't helping the Cubans by refusing to trade with Castro. Through a strong trade alliance, we have actually been able to lobby the Chinese government to moderate its position on human rights, and this is more than we've ever been able to achieve there before.

Still, the NWO isn't just about China, or trade with China, or slave labor. It's about market competitiveness in a global economy. It's about alliances of strong economies, and the power of such alliances in a global market. If we isolate ourselves from this, we will naturally slide down the slippery slope to economic disaster, because we can't compete with China, or the EU. In many areas, our trade with China actually helps to drive the price of goods up on the market, because of our buying power alone, it's supply and demand.

I'll explain what I mean with an example. Let's say China makes bluejeans and sells them for $2 a pair, netting a nice 100% profit over their cost of $1. The US agrees to buy their jeans at $4 a pair, if they observe international laws concerning the treatment of the people working in the jean factory. China agrees, and sells us their $1 jeans for $4 a pair... we put fancy tags on the pocket and sell them to the French for $200 a pair... everyone is happy! But the most important thing is, the flood of $2 jeans on the market from China, never happens, we bought their stock. Now, Levis and Wrangler can sell jeans on the market at $4 a pair, and compete with the Chinese in the global market.

This is a rather crude and simple example, but it demonstrates the concept of establishing trade alliances, and the NWO you so fear. It's not some diabolic plot to control the world, it's not some cartel of the wealthy trying to gain more power, it is the vision and idea for keeping America competitive in the global market place for years to come.

We simply can't stand in the world market with our hands on our hips, demanding these countries conform to our mandates, they don't have to, and we can't make them, unless we are willing to go to war.... which we're not. So, our objective becomes, how do we handle this so our economy doesn't collapse and our trade deficit doesn't continue to grow?

Not willing to go to war? That's funny.


We shouldn't be empowering people who have no intention of improving their human rights abuses. They have no intention of becoming free. They like totalitariansism and we're just enablers. Im no socialist, but you're ignoring all other concerns based on an abstract notion of ever expanding markets combined with the moral bankruptcy of never taking a moral stand. We can simply make different choices. Your conclusion is errant because it ignores the intrinsic value of freedom and morality, which may not easily translate into a value in the asset column of your balance sheet.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

These new world order people have given up fighting totalitarianism. they will accept totalitarianism, as long as they get a cut. And this is the party of the christians? The moral christians. Funny.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you're ignoring all other concerns based on an abstract notion of ever expanding markets combined with the moral bankruptcy of never taking a moral stand.

How are we taking a moral stand by ignoring and not dealing with the Chinese? We can do that, we were doing that, but what was happening was, the Chinese were beating our brains out in the global market. Not only us, but the countries in Europe as well, that is why they formed the EU, to consolidate market buying power, and be competitive in the global market with China. Now, we can afford to keep ignoring China, letting them continue to beat our brains out in the market, and continue to run a trade deficit, we are strong enough at this time to do that, but this will not last indefinitely. Eventually, our trade deficit will catch up with us, and our economy will likely collapse.

The reason you see the movement toward Ameri-Mexi-Canada, is because, from a global market standpoint, that is precisely how we solve the problem here. We must consolidate as the EU has, in order to compete in the years to come. If we fail to lay the ground work for this now, we can't do it later, we will miss the opportunity and the error in judgement will cause our economy to collapse, and pinheads to scream and moan. Likewise, we also have to work toward a global alliance of powers, the EU, China, NAFTA partners, all have to work together in trade, and through this, markets are stabilized.

The issue regarding conditions in China, and other similar nations, can be addressed through an idea promoted by a great Democrat President! A rising tide lifts all boats-- JFK. By bringing China into the fold of the world economy and global market, we can exert diplomatic pressure to change and reform, we have some leverage then, whereas, if there is no trade, what is their incentive to change? They have none. We stand a much better chance of fixing the human rights problems in China, by being invested in the Chinese economy, by purchasing and selling goods and services to China, and having that financial interest together, as opposed to having nothing to negotiate with.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

These new world order people have given up fighting totalitarianism. they will accept totalitarianism...

You are the one misusing the term "totalitarianism" not the NWO people.

Implementing and promoting a concept of unified global trade superpowers, is not totalitarianism, it is a legitimate means to long-term stability in global markets, which will result in better economies for all, and perhaps an end to some 'totalitarianism' in other places.

It's amazing how you are transforming into a pinhead before our very eyes! You use the classic tactic of over-exaggeration and blowing things out of proportion, to make a more dramatic statement and add a sense of urgency to your stupidity. Stop yourself from reacting emotionally, and think about what is being discussed. This isn't about some devious sinister plot of capitalist pigs, to control the world! Please try to get that idea out of your head, and objectively evaluate what they are saying. I didn't originally agree with NAFTA or GATT, but after researching the message, and analyzing the details, I formed a different opinion on the whole thing. It requires looking at this from the perspective of global economics, and the trends developing in the world markets. I am not the best one to explain it, and you can find all kinds of opinions and viewpoints on this, but to refuse to educate yourself is just ignorance, and we can't really afford to not proceed down this road due to ignorance.

It's easy to create a 'boogyman' and get everyone worked up. It is easy to take something productive and legitimate, like PNAC, and turn it into some sinister evil conspiracy plot. People will buy it because they lack confidence and trust in their government, so it's easy to believe. When you factor in partisanship, and our natural inclination to follow the pack, these myths can quickly snowball, and there is no turning back. People convince themselves things must be this way, they've thought it for so long now, it must be true!

Free-thinking, requires you to separate yourself from partisanship, and evaluate things objectively. When I hear someone ranting about the New World Order, PNAC, etc... I see someone who has not objectively looked into these things, they have accepted some partisan opinion and made their minds up already.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

These new world order people have given up fighting totalitarianism. they will accept totalitarianism...

You are the one misusing the term "totalitarianism" not the NWO people.

Implementing and promoting a concept of unified global trade superpowers, is not totalitarianism, it is a legitimate means to long-term stability in global markets, which will result in better economies for all, and perhaps an end to some 'totalitarianism' in other places.

Better economies? Who is an economy better for when slave labor is employed? Perhaps an end to totalitarianism? Perhaps? Freedom and individual rights used to be the moral underpinning of the west. Now it's economic growth by any means necessary, even at the expense of freedom? I envision something different, and reject your priorities and vision.

It's amazing how you are transforming into a pinhead before our very eyes! You use the classic tactic of over-exaggeration and blowing things out of proportion, to make a more dramatic statement and add a sense of urgency to your stupidity.

No. I'm making total sense. You're just glossing over the realities of what you promote with nice sounding words and misprioritize morality and economic growth. You present things as "the only way" when there are other choices we could make.

Stop yourself from reacting emotionally, and think about what is being discussed. This isn't about some devious sinister plot of capitalist pigs, to control the world! Please try to get that idea out of your head, and objectively evaluate what they are saying. I didn't originally agree with NAFTA or GATT, but after researching the message, and analyzing the details, I formed a different opinion on the whole thing. It requires looking at this from the perspective of global economics, and the trends developing in the world markets. I am not the best one to explain it, and you can find all kinds of opinions and viewpoints on this, but to refuse to educate yourself is just ignorance, and we can't really afford to not proceed down this road due to ignorance.

You are not thinking critically. THere ARE options on the table. We can choose to place business within a moral framework. And we should look at our economic policies in the wider context of national security and self-determination.

I used to be a neocon like you and I used to say all the same things and make all the same arguments. I was wrong then, as you are wrong now. There is no "only way" and your insults will not deter me from countering your lies with the truth. we could simply stop empowering our enemies with billions of trade dollars. We can close our border to protect our opportunities for our children instead of giving their future to the masses of south american poor. We can stop immigration of muslim terrorists into our nation. We can say no to the New world order.

It's easy to create a 'boogyman' and get everyone worked up. It is easy to take something productive and legitimate, like PNAC, and turn it into some sinister evil conspiracy plot. People will buy it because they lack confidence and trust in their government, so it's easy to believe.

Trust in government? Like big brother? should we love big brother?

When you factor in partisanship, and our natural inclination to follow the pack, these myths can quickly snowball, and there is no turning back. People convince themselves things must be this way, they've thought it for so long now, it must be true!

Your describing yourself and your nazi party of global fascism which is made up of both republicans and democrats.

Free-thinking, requires you to separate yourself from partisanship, and evaluate things objectively. When I hear someone ranting about the New World Order, PNAC, etc... I see someone who has not objectively looked into these things, they have accepted some partisan opinion and made their minds up already.

You've given up thinking for yourself; you just accept these memes presented to you by fascists as gospel and proceed to batter those who tell the truth, or present other options.

When you can see no alternative to giving billions in trade to a totalitarian nation, building it's military to destroy you, you are mentally gone, completely stark raving mad.

[Care4all]

Better economies? Who is an economy better for when slave labor is employed? Perhaps an end to totalitarianism? Perhaps? Freedom and individual rights used to be the moral underpinning of the west. Now it's economic growth by any means necessary, even at the expense of freedom? I envision something different, and reject your priorities and vision.

I agree with you on this!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Better economies? Who is an economy better for when slave labor is employed? Perhaps an end to totalitarianism? Perhaps? Freedom and individual rights used to be the moral underpinning of the west. Now it's economic growth by any means necessary, even at the expense of freedom? I envision something different, and reject your priorities and vision.

It still is the moral underpinning of the west, at least until Hillary gets elected. We can't tell China not to use 'slave labor' they just look at us as if we are fools, and laugh. We are not going to fight a war to make them do it, so what is your option? Refuse to trade and break diplomatic ties? How is that going to resolve the human rights issues in China? Please explain it to me, because I don't see an end to the means here.

No. I'm making total sense. You're just glossing over the realities of what you promote with nice sounding words and misprioritize morality and economic growth. You present things as "the only way" when there are other choices we could make.


No, you are not making sense, because you haven't explained how disengaging with China, and refusing to trade with them, is going to solve the human rights problem in China. Until you can show me how that happens, I don't believe you, mostly because that was the scenario prior to 1972, and the human rights conditions only worsened in China.


You are not thinking critically. THere ARE options on the table. We can choose to place business within a moral framework. And we should look at our economic policies in the wider context of national security and self-determination.

Oh, I am thinking critically, it is you who isn't. There are no other options on the table, placing business within a moral framework didn't work, we tried it for decades, the problem only worsened. Our policies are centered around national security and self-determination, it is far better to have trade relations with China, than to impose some moral trade ban on them. As I said, and you have not countered, if we don't have trade and commerce with China, we essentially have nothing to bargain with, and the Chinese can tell us to kiss their little yellow asses. If we have billions of dollars tied up in trade interests, it's a little easier to negotiate with them, to lobby the government to change its policies, to push for better conditions.


we could simply stop empowering our enemies with billions of trade dollars.

And as I have repeatedly said, that is precisely what we did up until 1972, when Nixon normalized trade relations with China. The problem with your idea is, we have tried it and it failed. China ignored our calls for moderation, and sold all they could produce to Russia, and our lack of trade dollars didn't effect them one little bit. We had ZERO leverage with the Chinese, nothing to bargain for or with, because we had polarized relations completely with China, and until Nixon, we had no means to negotiate with them about the human rights issues. Now, we are developing a strong trade relationship with them, and that is the key to fostering change in China, it's the only real option we have, unless we want to go to war.

We can close our border to protect our opportunities for our children instead of giving their future to the masses of south american poor. We can stop immigration of muslim terrorists into our nation. We can say no to the New world order.

Yes, and we can all put on our tin foil hats and pretend that Dick Cheney was abducted by aliens, and they seek to control the country. We can bluster up a bunch of drummed up and hyped up hooey about secret cartels and sinister plots, and work the pinheads up into a frenzy over it! THAT is going to solve the human rights problems in China, right???


Trust in government? Like big brother? should we love big brother?

As I said... because you distrust government!

Your describing yourself and your nazi party of global fascism which is made up of both republicans and democrats.

Speaking candidly and objectively, I do not believe there are "nazis" on either side of the political aisle in America. Again, you are going to the well of misused words, and trying to apply dramatic context to make your point... typical pinhead behavior.... classic!

You've given up thinking for yourself; you just accept these memes presented to you by fascists as gospel and proceed to batter those who tell the truth, or present other options.

Well, no... it would appear YOU are the one who has given up thinking, I have been trying to get you to think, but you seem almost incapable because of your partisanship, pinheadedness, or general distrust of government. I haven't "accepted" anything, I just posted how I didn't agree with NAFTA and GATT until I researched them, so how do you figure I "just accepted" this? And as for "other opinions" I have asked you to share your opinions, and you you can't seem to tell me what your plan is for China, or the global economic future, or any other issue we've discussed. You just want to rail on Bush and the Administration, the "neocons" and the NWO. Which would be alright, if you brought substance, but you don't. It's typical liberal knee-jerk reactionary emotive reasoning.

When you can see no alternative to giving billions in trade to a totalitarian nation, building it's military to destroy you, you are mentally gone, completely stark raving mad.

We don't GIVE billions in trade, we TRADE in billions with. You make it sound as if we are gifting something to the Chinese, and we aren't. Again, I ask you, what is your alternative? Tell me something we haven't tried, and I will listen! The way I see it, we have two choices, foster healthy trade relations with China, and try to be diplomatic, or isolate and alienate them completely. The later has been tried, and didn't work. We can stand here with our hands on our hips acting incredulous about the human rights conditions in China, but without some means to leverage and motivate China to change, it isn't going to happen, there is no reason for it to happen, China has no interest in doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and we aren't going to militarily force them to, and they know that. So... what's your solution? You have none!

The solution, or at least the beginning of a possible solution, comes through diplomacy, and fostering good strong trade alliances with China, becoming economically connected mutually, so that we have a bargaining chip. Without this leverage, China is not going to change, and we can't change them.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Better economies? Who is an economy better for when slave labor is employed? Perhaps an end to totalitarianism? Perhaps? Freedom and individual rights used to be the moral underpinning of the west. Now it's economic growth by any means necessary, even at the expense of freedom? I envision something different, and reject your priorities and vision.

It still is the moral underpinning of the west, at least until Hillary gets elected. We can't tell China not to use 'slave labor' they just look at us as if we are fools, and laugh. We are not going to fight a war to make them do it, so what is your option? Refuse to trade and break diplomatic ties? How is that going to resolve the human rights issues in China? Please explain it to me, because I don't see an end to the means here.

No. I'm making total sense. You're just glossing over the realities of what you promote with nice sounding words and misprioritize morality and economic growth. You present things as "the only way" when there are other choices we could make.


No, you are not making sense, because you haven't explained how disengaging with China, and refusing to trade with them, is going to solve the human rights problem in China. Until you can show me how that happens, I don't believe you, mostly because that was the scenario prior to 1972, and the human rights conditions only worsened in China.


You are not thinking critically. THere ARE options on the table. We can choose to place business within a moral framework. And we should look at our economic policies in the wider context of national security and self-determination.

Oh, I am thinking critically, it is you who isn't. There are no other options on the table, placing business within a moral framework didn't work, we tried it for decades, the problem only worsened. Our policies are centered around national security and self-determination, it is far better to have trade relations with China, than to impose some moral trade ban on them. As I said, and you have not countered, if we don't have trade and commerce with China, we essentially have nothing to bargain with, and the Chinese can tell us to kiss their little yellow asses. If we have billions of dollars tied up in trade interests, it's a little easier to negotiate with them, to lobby the government to change its policies, to push for better conditions.


we could simply stop empowering our enemies with billions of trade dollars.

And as I have repeatedly said, that is precisely what we did up until 1972, when Nixon normalized trade relations with China. The problem with your idea is, we have tried it and it failed. China ignored our calls for moderation, and sold all they could produce to Russia, and our lack of trade dollars didn't effect them one little bit. We had ZERO leverage with the Chinese, nothing to bargain for or with, because we had polarized relations completely with China, and until Nixon, we had no means to negotiate with them about the human rights issues. Now, we are developing a strong trade relationship with them, and that is the key to fostering change in China, it's the only real option we have, unless we want to go to war.

We can close our border to protect our opportunities for our children instead of giving their future to the masses of south american poor. We can stop immigration of muslim terrorists into our nation. We can say no to the New world order.

Yes, and we can all put on our tin foil hats and pretend that Dick Cheney was abducted by aliens, and they seek to control the country. We can bluster up a bunch of drummed up and hyped up hooey about secret cartels and sinister plots, and work the pinheads up into a frenzy over it! THAT is going to solve the human rights problems in China, right???


Trust in government? Like big brother? should we love big brother?

As I said... because you distrust government!

Your describing yourself and your nazi party of global fascism which is made up of both republicans and democrats.

Speaking candidly and objectively, I do not believe there are "nazis" on either side of the political aisle in America. Again, you are going to the well of misused words, and trying to apply dramatic context to make your point... typical pinhead behavior.... classic!

You've given up thinking for yourself; you just accept these memes presented to you by fascists as gospel and proceed to batter those who tell the truth, or present other options.

Well, no... it would appear YOU are the one who has given up thinking, I have been trying to get you to think, but you seem almost incapable because of your partisanship, pinheadedness, or general distrust of government. I haven't "accepted" anything, I just posted how I didn't agree with NAFTA and GATT until I researched them, so how do you figure I "just accepted" this? And as for "other opinions" I have asked you to share your opinions, and you you can't seem to tell me what your plan is for China, or the global economic future, or any other issue we've discussed. You just want to rail on Bush and the Administration, the "neocons" and the NWO. Which would be alright, if you brought substance, but you don't. It's typical liberal knee-jerk reactionary emotive reasoning.

When you can see no alternative to giving billions in trade to a totalitarian nation, building it's military to destroy you, you are mentally gone, completely stark raving mad.

We don't GIVE billions in trade, we TRADE in billions with. You make it sound as if we are gifting something to the Chinese, and we aren't. Again, I ask you, what is your alternative? Tell me something we haven't tried, and I will listen! The way I see it, we have two choices, foster healthy trade relations with China, and try to be diplomatic, or isolate and alienate them completely. The later has been tried, and didn't work. We can stand here with our hands on our hips acting incredulous about the human rights conditions in China, but without some means to leverage and motivate China to change, it isn't going to happen, there is no reason for it to happen, China has no interest in doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and we aren't going to militarily force them to, and they know that. So... what's your solution? You have none!

The solution, or at least the beginning of a possible solution, comes through diplomacy, and fostering good strong trade alliances with China, becoming economically connected mutually, so that we have a bargaining chip. Without this leverage, China is not going to change, and we can't change them.

Everything I want to do is just a list of things we're just "not going to do" from your point of view. That's not a rationale for what we are doing. you dismiss any alternative because you're a closed minded fascist cretin.

We can put trade sanction on our enemies, and we should. We can change them. You've basically given up fighting evil, unless it threatens your precious masters, the jews. WHy will you fight in iraq, but doing something about china is simply "undoable"? What accounts for this disparity in resolve?