Confused loyalties.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/na ... 43242.aspx
An article about how people feel about our relations with China, US/China relations, North Korea/South Korea conflict.

What do you think?

[Leftwinger]

A slightly awkward situation isn't it? Two countries, one supposed to be our number one ally and the other one our most important trading partner, somewhat antagonistic toward each other. Not suggesting that that actually want to go to war with each other of course but if they ever did, we would be a bit like the meat in the sandwich. Of course, both WW1 and WW2 proved that just being important trading partners doesn't mean that you don't end up slaughtering one another.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6044999397

[Outlaw Yogi]

Of course, both WW1 and WW2 proved that just being important trading partners doesn't mean that you don't end up slaughtering one another.

Well according to an article I read years ago, titled 'The History of Banking', history is littered with accounts of trading partners going to war against one another over trade deficit induced debt, going back to Babylon. Typically the indebted nation invades the creditor nation, expunging any debt to them and acquiring resources/assets to replenish their own bankrupted treasury and economy. In most cases the invading nation adopted the occupied nation's banking/financial regimes, became the dominant trade player, got other nations into debt, and in turn were invaded by those nations.

If the trade debt to war scenario is as simplistic as portrayed, and history keeps repeating itself, the US invasion of China shouldn't be too far off now.