Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Overbom said:
Bush was already planning to deal with Chima in 2000.

Then the terrorist attacks happened and China was saved (would be almost impossible for China to resist back then)
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The Hainan incident would have been the perfect pretext for the US to escalate, but instead Bush apologized and tried to sweep the incident under the rug.

Keep in mind that the US was still working on subverting China back then. It was only when it became clear that China wasn't going to be subverted that the niceties ended.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Michaelsinodef said:
This, the 2001 getting China into the WTO was also part of the 'plan' to subvert/change China from the inside.
Click to expand...

Yes, with hindsight, it's pretty obvious what the US' plans were for China: corrupt the CPC, create a class of Chinese billionaires beholden financially and ideologically to the US, and make the Chinese population believe that US-style "democracy" is the holy grail of reforms.

Their plans were going along quite successfully, but they didn't anticipate the CPC actually subverting their attempt at subversion. The Great Firewall blocked the US propaganda machine from achieving its goals, and Xi's anti-corruption campaign took everyone by complete surprise. With neither political nor popular support, Chinese billionaires had no choice but to play ball with the government.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The PNAC which was behind the George W Bush government had a plan to invade Iraq and North Korea.
The neocons had been pushing the US government to have the capability to wager two simultaneous conflicts at least since the Clinton administration to be able to do this. They claimed this would allow them to free military resources currently stationed in South Korea and then in Kuwait and allow them to be in a better position to later either invade Syria and Iran or, after using the saved resources from relinquishing those troops, engage in a massive military buildup aimed at tackling China and Russia. Personally I think it is pathetic they assumed either of those countries would just roll over and not require an occupation force. Which is what happened in actuality.

You should still be able to find the PDF online. It is called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" and was written just before 9/11. It also "prophetically" claims that it would require a second Pearl Harbor type event for the US military transformation to happen. This is why some people claim 9/11 was an inside job. Some of the members of PNAC included Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
daifo

daifo

Major
Registered Member
Iran, Iraq, and N Korea had nothing to do with 9/11 but they all got dragged in as the Axis of Evil in the 2002 state of the union address, a few months after 9/11. I would not be surprise if the goal was to attack iraq, iran, then n korea... but the plans sputter in Iraq
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
daifo said:
Iran, Iraq, and N Korea had nothing to do with 9/11 but they all got dragged in as the Axis of Evil in the 2002 state of the union address, a few months after 9/11. I would not be surprise if the goal was to attack iraq, iran, then n korea... but the plans sputter in Iraq
Click to expand...

Their plan before 9/11 was to attack Iraq and North Korea simultaneously. They would use the forces already pre-positioned in Kuwait and South Korea plus some reinforcements. Because of Afghanistan (where Bin Laden was located) they couldn't do the attack on North Korea.

These PNAC neocons are why the seemingly nonsensical decision to invade Iraq post 9/11 was made. That was the plan all along and they were just waiting for a pretext to do it.

In reality the US plan was basically impossible I think. While they did manage to invade Iraq with minimal forces, taking control of it was much harder and required piles and piles of reinforcements later on. Same deal happened in Afghanistan where it kept getting increasingly more costly as time went on. Today's Iraq government is Shiite and loathes the US for the occupation. They also had to exit from Afghanistan as it was untenable there.
 
Last edited:
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The PNAC which was behind the George W Bush government had a plan to invade Iraq and North Korea.
The neocons had been pushing the US government to have the capability to wager two simultaneous conflicts at least since the Clinton administration to be able to do this. They claimed this would allow them to free military resources currently stationed in South Korea and then in Kuwait and allow them to be in a better position to later either invade Syria and Iran or, after using the saved resources from relinquishing those troops, engage in a massive military buildup aimed at tackling China and Russia. Personally I think it is pathetic they assumed either of those countries would just roll over and not require an occupation force. Which is what happened in actuality.

You should still be able to find the PDF online. It is called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" and was written just before 9/11. It also "prophetically" claims that it would require a second Pearl Harbor type event for the US military transformation to happen. This is why some people claim 9/11 was an inside job. Some of the members of PNAC included Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
I heard and read of this 2 Major Regional Simultaenuous Conflict (MRC) back in the days (1995) it was about the Iraq conflict and then North Korea happening within months of each other. The person I heard this topic being discussed was made by Gen.Wes K. Clark (ret.) at CSIS. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the video anymore on the internet or YouTube where it was posted. But if my memory served me right, Clark was brutally honest about the unfeasibility of such scenario and the 2 MRC concept was designed by War planners at the Pentagon for $$$ and nothing more. The geopolitical environment in the mid 90's was not as volatile and challenging for the U.S. military and there was a constant tussle between the Clinton White House that was seemingly adversarial with it's military due to the fact that Clinton was an infamous draft dodger and supposedly one of it's White House Staffer insulted then Gen.Barry McCaffrey (the most distinguished combat general officer of his generation) when he paid a visit to the White House. Plus, Bill Clinton was allegedly intimidated by Gen.Colin Powell because of who he was at the time in American political scene and the fact that Powell was seen as a potential Republican nominee that may challenge his former boss (Clinton) once he retired from the service. Clinton being a new Democrat one of the Founding members of the now defunct Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and a political animal/survival he needed to placate the demands of his unruly military and his recalcitrant new Republican House Majority that were about to make his life a living hell and will use his perceived weakness with the military to attack him with to weaken his chances for reelection.

He had accepted the MRC concept to be budgeted and then some by also expanding NATO, involving NATO (U.S.) in Bosnia to the chagrin of his U.S. military commander Lt.Gen. Leighton Smith who even had to dress down and yelled at then Clinton acolyte Lt.Gen.Wes Clark (J-5) Director of Strategy Concept and Plans for telling Smith to bomb the Serbs and follow order of CINC. Which added to Clark's military enemies and from there on out, Clark was enemy number 1 by the military.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Bellum_Romanum said:
I heard and read of this 2 Major Regional Simultaenuous Conflict (MRC) back in the days (1995) it was about the Iraq conflict and then North Korea happening within months of each other. The person I heard this topic being discussed was made by Gen.Wes K. Clark (ret.) at CSIS. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the video anymore on the internet or YouTube where it was posted. But if my memory served me right, Clark was brutally honest about the unfeasibility of such scenario and the 2 MRC concept was designed by War planners at the Pentagon for $$$ and nothing more.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to invade Iraq. Totally another to invade North Korea. Doubt even Bush Jr. would have been foolish enough to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top