Shows, I think, how little deeper insight has gone into some of the big strategic moves the US has made.
Our blinkered political history, and political structures, made this short sightedness inevitable. (Some may rightly quibble over 'inevitable', but I will still use it.)
If we really wanted bigger imperialism,
rather than an economic nationalism more appropriate for many reasons,
we should not have embarked, instead, on blind globalization, after WW II.
If Kaiser is right about significance of big petro contracts with the French, re Iraq,
how then about the big resource contracts of China and India with Australia which I have noted.....
Sounds like they really need to be unwound,
but how about free trade?
Weren't those resources, also, acquired at the so called China price ( Big Lots )?
What is wrong with this China Price?
No comments:
Post a Comment