Max,

Do you really think so?

I subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories but I don't see a single one of these items being public that will not do us more harm than good, either diplomatically or politically.

I lived through a period of time when a large majority of the American people wanted us to take out Cuba as soon as they learned that the Russians had nuclear weapons there.  What our government didn't know, and of course the public couldn't have known, was that they already had missiles armed and ready to fire automatically upon any invasion by the time we were in a position to act.

Distrust of public opinion is a dangerous weapon and, as in the case of the Warren Commission and escalation of the Vietnam war, it has, in my opinion, led to some very bad moves.  But I don't see how China bashing or creating an atmosphere in which folks like Mubarak are unwilling to have candid discussions with our government serves our public interest in the least.

Do you really think it makes more sense to take on China now than it did in 1952?

Last edited by Mags (11/29/2010 4:23 pm)

I agree with Mags.  There could be equally damning info why the USA isnt doing something about those issues and reason they want the leaks to stop is beause they dont want the bag of worms to be opened.

Helpfull as in

"1. It's the Middle-Eastern arab countries that are pushing us to bomb Iran. we are being used in pawns in there of needless fighting

2. Syria continues to supply Hezbollah with weapons.and we would rather nobody know then the truth come out.  Making the this war seem even less about WMD and world saftey

3. more than 9 years after 9/11, wealthy Saudi Arabians continue to be the main funding source Al Qaedathe war has dont nothing to cripple the powers that be

4. The Chinese are assisting the Iranians with their nuclear programwe are scared shitless of the chinese

5. The North Koreans (a Chinese client state) are assisting the Iranians with their missile program (based on a Russian design) again we are scared of the Chinese"

ECT... political spin can always be spun the other way too.

Last edited by APRTW (11/30/2010 12:16 pm)

""we are scared shitless of the chinese": not us, per se, we could kick their ass. "


We cant even kick a third world countries ass.  China has alot hanging over the USA's head.

The following article doesn't paint such a bad picture of China visa vie North Korera in the Wikileaks disclosures:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/wikileaks-reveals-plans-north-korean-collapse/

If the article is accurate, however, the leak does undermine China's ability to gain access to information about what is going on in North Korea and to influence events there.

Incidentally, on a complete aside.  I note the article says that China would be willing to accept a unified Korea under a Seoul government and that it would offer economic possibilities for China.  I am glad the Chinese can see that since it should be obvious to anyone who knows a damn thing about South Koreas economic development.  But the interesting point is the statement that the Chinese would not want to see American troops north of the demilitarized zone.  Big deal.  If we had a unified, democratic government for Korea, why the hell should we have any American troops anywhere on the peninsula?

Coincidentally, I was about to post this, which I grabbed from a former student's facebook.  In my estimation, Lee Kuan Yew is one of the wisest, most intelligent leaders of the past half century.  He is almost always going to have it pegged correctly.  His version is that China will not give up North Korea, which they view as an essential buffer state.  According to LKY, the Chinese feel that a nuclear North Korea is better than no buffer state, even if that leads to a nuclear Japan.  This is fascinating reading, especially if you take my word on LKY.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/210110

Max wrote:

Coincidentally, I was about to post this, which I grabbed from a former student's facebook.  In my estimation, Lee Kuan Yew is one of the wisest, most intelligent leaders of the past half century.  He is almost always going to have it pegged correctly.  His version is that China will not give up North Korea, which they view as an essential buffer state.  According to LKY, the Chinese feel that a nuclear North Korea is better than no buffer state, even if that leads to a nuclear Japan.  This is fascinating reading, especially if you take my word on LKY.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/210110

And if that is true then here comes WWIII.  The USA wont stand by while any of that happens.

Mags wrote:

I can't see any reason for not taking the Chinese at their word when they reportedly tell us privately (if the leaks are accurate) that they have no problem with a unified Korea.

I don't think I am playing white hat / black hat reasoning here.  As I read that article, it was a South Korean diplomat (or businessman?) telling an American diplomat that his reading of the Chinese position was that they would cave on a unified Korea if ROK dangled some business opportunities.  Opposed to that is LKY's reading.  Who has more of a vested interest in selling the Americans one vision or another of how South Korea can deal with the DPRK and PRC?  An active South Korean diplomat, or a retired Singaporean statesman?

My admiration for LKY comes from following him in the news for the past 15 years or so (he's a big deal when you live in SE Asia) and discovering through experience that he has been right about almost everything.  There are criticisms, to be sure, but I would much rather be a Singaporean than a Malaysian or an Indonesian, and we often overlook the fact that our options in life are typically A or B, and not "current condition" versus "ideal condition". 

In any case, LKY's interpretation makes sense in light of the reality of a nuclear DPRK.  Which superpower ever allowed one of their client states to openly develop and test nuclear weapons???  I think there is just the one example, and that indicates pretty strong support, IMO.

Last edited by Max (12/01/2010 11:54 am)

Max wrote:

Mags wrote:

I can't see any reason for not taking the Chinese at their word when they reportedly tell us privately (if the leaks are accurate) that they have no problem with a unified Korea.

I don't think I am playing white hat / black hat reasoning here.  As I read that article, it was a South Korean diplomat (or businessman?) telling an American diplomat that his reading of the Chinese position was that they would cave on a unified Korea if ROK dangled some business opportunities.  Opposed to that is LKY's reading.  Who has more of a vested interest in selling the Americans one vision or another of how South Korea can deal with the DPRK and PRC?  An active South Korean diplomat, or a retired Singaporean statesman?

My admiration for LKY comes from following him in the news for the past 15 years or so (he's a big deal when you live in SE Asia) and discovering through experience that he has been right about almost everything.  There are criticisms, to be sure, but I would much rather be a Singaporean than a Malaysian or an Indonesian, and we often overlook the fact that our options in life are typically A or B, and not "current condition" versus "ideal condition". 

In any case, LKY's interpretation makes sense in light of the reality of a nuclear DPRK.  Which superpower ever allowed one of their client states to openly develop and test nuclear weapons???  I think there is just the one example, and that indicates pretty strong support, IMO.

Although you've not won me over to your conclusion about the leaks, I really appreciate the information about LKY.  I frankly know almost nothing about Asian politics outside of their economies and Singapore has emerged as one of the best run operations in the world today.  I wish I'd had more than just a few dollars to invest in their ETF (EWS) a year ago.

Last edited by Mags (12/01/2010 10:06 pm)

Max wrote:

Singapore vehemently denies any allegations along the lines of the following, but his greatest stroke of genius might have come at the birth of the nation when the Federation of Malaya kicked Singapore out, thereby resulting in independence for wealthy, urban, cosmopolitan, Chinese dominated Singapore from poor, backward, rural, Malay dominated Malaysia.  To me, it is the single most brilliant "war of independence" that has ever been conducted anywhere in any age.

You probably won't like this but you and Thomas Sowell seem to be on the same page here.

Another damaging leak?  A few more like this and we'll have world opinion behind us again. 


"A confidential State Department cable made public this week highlights China's role in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

The U.S. ambassador in far-off Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, confronted China's ambassador about a covert attempt by Beijing to bribe the government there to shut down the strategic U.S. military transit base at Manas in exchange for $3 billion in cash.

The Feb. 13, 2009, cable signed by Ambassador Tatiana C. Gfoeller revealed that Chinese Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Zhang Yannian "did not deny categorically" the covert cash offer to close the base, which is a major transit and refueling point for U.S. troops and supplies heading into northern Afghanistan.

"After opening pleasantries, the ambassador mentioned that Kyrgyz officials had told her that China had offered a $3 billion financial package to close Manas Air Base and asked for the ambassador's reaction to such an allegation," the cable stated.

"Visibly flustered, Zhang temporarily lost the ability to speak Russian and began spluttering in Chinese to the silent aide diligently taking notes right behind him. Once he had recovered the power of Russian speech, he inveighed against such a calumny, claiming that such an idea was impossible, China was a staunch opponent of terrorism, and China's attitude toward Kyrgyzstan's decision to close Manas was one of 'respect and understanding.' "

The cable highlights what observers say has been China's behind-the-scenes, anti-U.S. strategy of seeking to undermine U.S. global counterterrorism efforts."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-843880610/?page=2