|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Candidates Ignore China at Our Peril Lev Navrozov When the United States "pre-emptively" invaded Iraq, most Americans approved the war in which they could well expect the U.S. victory in weeks, if not days. Consider this: the U.S., a 21st-century technological superpower with its population of almost 300 million versus a technologically backward Islamic relic with its population of 26 million (in which the Sunni, some of whom ready to wage a guerrilla war of the kind waged against Napoleon's invasions about two centuries ago, account for only about one-third of the population of Iraq). Today most Americans are for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; that is, for the U.S. defeat in a war against Sunni volunteers fighting guerrilla war of about two centuries ago. In other words, the Iraq war has demonstrated the absence of political thinking on the part of (1) the U.S. president (commander in chief), (2) the U.S. intelligence/espionage, (3) the Pentagon, (4) the Congress, (5) "academy," and (6) "the mass communication media." What about the war — no, not against Sunni guerrillas, but in defense against the dictatorship of China (population 1.3 billion) in cooperation with Putin's Russia, who has recently created a kind of ministry of nanotechnology? In the CNN's debates last June of eight Democratic and 10 Republican presidential contenders, none of them as much as mentioned the dictatorship of China in alliance with Putin's Russia as a military threat. In the CNN's program of July 23, the Democratic candidates were questioned by voters, each represented on a TV screen, with basic data about him or her. None of them ever mentioned the word "China." They wanted a more prosperous life, including better medical care for themselves as well as for their families and/or other Americans. What dictatorship of China? Are you out of your mind? Story Continues Below
On July 20, I received an e-mail from an American reader of mine named David (I withhold his last name) with this subject line: "It's futile Lev":
Why bother attempting to alarm our myopic leaders here in the US regarding the threat posed by China? We are behind the Chinese in IQ, pride of nationality, perseverance, and focus. This is a 5,000-year-old culture that invented gun power, also the detailed sensitive trigger used on cross bows, paper currency, and the compass. Having added that the Chinese "certainly could outlast us in their fierce dedication and sheer numbers," my reader David advises me to "enjoy the life" that has been left to the United States and which "won't end prettily." Despite this possibly sound advice, I will continue to resist. The United States has survived so far because Hitler had no aviation whose range would have permitted him to drop even conventional bombs on U.S. cities as he dropped them on Britain. Japan paid dearly, for its Pearl Harbor attack, the price of two U.S. nuclear bombs dropped on its cities, whereupon Japan surrendered unconditionally. Germany declared war on the United States in 1941, which contributed to the U.S. development of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the dictatorship of China is a dear friend of the West and a highly valued trade partner. It is time to realize that we are living in 2007, in the era of post-nuclear super weapons (such as nano weapons). But who will think of its development of post-nuclear weapons (such as nano weapons) to be used against such an amicable country? There is not a single internationally or even nationally known political thinker in the United States after the death in 1989 of Sidney Hook, whom I had the honor to know personally. How did political thinking once flourish in the West? The greatest political thinker of the post-Roman West is probably John Stuart Mill, who published "On Liberty" in Britain in 1859. Not only did Mill never study at any university—he never went to school. The way of life of a political thinker? A political thinker wrote books, which his admirers bought, as they did the magazines in which his articles appeared. The newspapers John Stuart Mill rejected as Philistine twaddle. Many Americans believe that political thinkers are not needed in the United States because their society, which originated as a result of the War of Independence (from Britain) and the Civil War (against slavery), is the best possible except for some details, which the U.S. presidents can introduce. Canada or Australia had neither the War of Independence nor the Civil War, but they are not worse off than the U.S. as far as democracy and constitutionalism are concerned. The American War of Independence took place because many Americans (including some Founding Fathers) were slave owners, and wanted to keep slavery, while there was no slavery in Britain, Canada, and Australia because they did not have such plantations. Hence in the United States another war was waged in the 19th century — the Civil War — to free American slaves. The American Revolution? Meant in Western Europe by a Revolution was the "overthrow" and sometimes execution of the monarch. The power of the British monarch was restricted by the Great Charter (of Liberties) in 1215, but in 2007, the queen continues to be the queen in Britain and hence in Canada and Australia. Why? Said Louis XIV: "The State is I." He was not restricted by a Great Charter. But on the other hand, he was not a temporary official either, ready to use his office for his own purposes as do every year about 400 federal officials in the United States. As Revolutionaries, the Founding Fathers "overthrew" the British monarch (in their imagination) and instituted instead a temporary top federal official whom they named "president," and who was elected in a general election, with universal suffrage — all psychically normal adults could vote. The question is, How can these adults evaluate a presidential candidate? In the two last elections most of them voted for Bush. Today they regard him as . . . He has been a top federal official, and like about 400 federal officials do every year (and are convicted in courts), misused his office for his personal purpose — to turn Iraq into a super-Texas (see his Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003). He has failed. But the public attention has been glued to Iraq, which has cost trillions of U.S. dollars, thousands of American lives, and the oblivion of the danger from the dictatorship of China. Yet the voters are more blind than that. Nearly all of them have been perceiving George W. Bush as a gentleman, nay, a dapper fellow, waving his hand to greet all people on sight. His admirers said in 2003 that it was not for nothing that he descends from the British aristocracy. But in 2006, they could open "Hubris" (Crown Publishers), Page 3, to read the records of the "British aristocrat" George Bush's screams in 2003 (about how he would crush Iraq), consisting of mostly unprintable words — no different from the screams of a Texan thug, threatening (unprintable expletive) to murder (another unprintable expletive) his rivals (a string of unprintable expletives). You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.
Editor's note: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |