Can we trust China?

[Jovial Monk]

Froges wrote:

WWII, the USA is her greatest supporter, even before the US entered the war. Directly after China becomes a belligerent antagonist the US.

The communists put up the most resistance to the Japanese, the Kuomintang tended to fight the communists. After the war did the US support Mao or Cash My Cheque?

[JW Frogen]

Given what a manic, mass murderer Mao was, (the greatest killer of the 20th century) it is clear the US made the right moral, if not strategic, decision.

This is the nature of the US.

[Jovial Monk]

So the US backed Cash My Cheque and you are surprised the new Communist Chinese govt was not friendly to the US?

[mantra.]

There are many things to intensely dislike about the US Government and its mates - Haliburton, Exxon Oil, Lockheed and Boeing Arms etc. I would still prefer them to be the Global leaders than China. We forget so quickly about China's human rights atrocities - they are still slaughtering people for body parts and for other less trivial reasons let alone their live animal skinning.

They will always push their communist regime and are probably more racist than we are - they are certainly better organised than us. After living in a democratic nation for 200 years - do we really want our children and grandchildren to be slaves to China when they eventually own more of Australia than we do?

[Jovial Monk]

It certainly is a great pity that the Rodent spent $400Bn, proceeds of a once in a lifetime boom, on buying elections. Regional Rorts, unsustainable tax cuts and the like. Fancy having a $400Bn Sovereign Fund! We could provide finance via equity to firms like Rio that need it (in Rio's case because it made a bad decision just before the crash.)

But it was the Chinese did the saving. No point gnashing your teeth, if a company needs finance only the Chinese are able to supply it.

[JW Frogen]

So the US backed Cash My Cheque and you are surprised the new Communist Chinese govt was not friendly to the US?

Mash and murder Moa was not freindly to the Chinese people, he killed more of them than even the Japanese, so the US probably could not have expected a great reception from this monsterous ego what ever they did.

What they did do is oppose him, which was morally right and would have saved tens of millions of Chinese lives had the US backed government won.

[White Indigene]

I think the weight of events is against

the World Police. Sure, America can proclaim -not on our watch-, but was 9/11 an aberation? Does the Vic fires tell us the truth about the capabilities of World Gerontocracy?

Can pigs fly?

The other day, I watched as a bus driver stopped in the middle of the road, and waved to a bind man & his guide dog to pass. I dont think I need to say much about the identity of the driver.

Stupidity has created a glut at the gates of change.

[JW Frogen]

I dont think I need to say much about the identity of the driver.

It was Ray, wasn't it?

[mantra.]

Turnbull is accusing Rudd of hyping us up about China being a threat, although it was Costello who first mentioned it a couple of years ago stating that it's better to sell them what they want, rather than have them just take it. That was a hint and a half.

Turnbull is making the right noises in regard to Chinalco's $30 billion bid to increase its stake in Rio Tinto, but he is being highly contradictory as well. If he's so concerned about our national interest in this takeover bid - why is he publicly stating that China isn't a threat to us and Rudd has it wrong? It sounds like Rudd knows something we don't.

But in a speech to the Lowy Institute, Mr Turnbull will argue the bid in its "current form" is against the national interest because Chinalco, as a state-owned entity, is under the effective control of the Chinese Communist Party.

Didn't Swan state last year that he was closing this loophole to ensure that only private companies and individuals would be allowed to buy huge chunks of our resource companies? Why haven't' they done it yet?

He will also argue that a large buyer of Australian commodities should not have a position of influence or access in the production of those commodities.

And he will point out that no Australian firm would be allowed to buy a stake in a Chinese resources company because they are all state-owned.

Mr Turnbull's stated position will pre-empt the scrutiny of the bid by the Foreign Investment Review Board. It will make a recommendation in mid-June to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, who has the final decision.

Mr Turnbull's position also comes just before the start of an inquiry into the Chinalco bid by the Senate Economics Committee. The first 42 submissions to that inquiry were released yesterday. Of these, 27 were from private citizens and all were hostile to the Chinalco bid.

One invokes Anzac Day and says, "We must be vigilant to safeguard ourselves from incursions of a different nature in this time of so-called peace".

The Herald has learned that another six-odd submissions from citizens have been deemed to be overtly inflammatory and nationalistic in tone and the committee has yet to decide whether to make them public.

Rio has threatened to sack 2000 miners if the deal is blocked. Mr Turnbull's position will provide the Government with political cover should it decide to block the deal - or ammunition should it approve it in the name of saving jobs and encouraging foreign investment.

Chinalco's submission released yesterday says that while it is state-owned, it operates at arm's length from Beijing.

"Chinese law ensures that a separation exists between the ownership interests in a [state-owned enterprise] and the management of the commercial operations of the enterprise," says the Chinalco president, Xiong Weiping.

It points out that there was no objection to Chinalco acquiring 11 per cent of Rio Tinto in two separate transactions.

Its subsidiary Chalco already has a stake in the Aurukun Bauxite Project in Queensland.

Mr Turnbull will contend today that Mr Rudd is erratic and awkward in his approach to China. He will say fears about China's rise as a world power are exaggerated.

"It makes no sense for Australia in 2009 to base its long-term strategic policy on the highly contentious proposition that we are on an inevitable collision course with China," he will say.

He will ridicule the Prime Minister for apparently presenting himself as an intermediary between China and the US.

"The risk of Mr Rudd representing himself as some kind of trans-Pacific interlocutor is that he will be perceived by the Americans as being overly-sympathetic to China, and by the Chinese as a bearer of other people's messages rather than as an advocate of his own."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/turnbull ... tml?page=1

[Jovial Monk]

Given what a manic, mass murderer Mao was, (the greatest killer of the 20th century) it is clear the US made the right moral, if not strategic, decision.

This is the nature of the US.

Yeah, unless the mass murderer is a fascist: e.g. Pinochet, Saddam