Senior Chinese Military Officers Join Iran In Delivering "Punch" To U.S., Propose Selling Treasuries As Arms Sales Punishment

Tyler Durden's picture

And you were worried about Iran. China's People Liberation Army has come out and openly said that the nuclear option, i.e., selling US Treasuries, is now on the table and should be exercised as "punishment" for U.S.' arms sales to Taiwan. China undoubtedly realizes that this is a prime example of sado-masochism as the resultant plunge in Treasuries that would follow would hurt the US certainly, but also have a "mild to quite mild" impact on China's $700 (and likely much greater) UST holdings. Game theory 101 just got interesting.

From Reuters:


Senior Chinese
military officers have proposed that their country boost defense
spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to
punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan.

The calls for broad retaliation over the
planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island came from officers at
China's National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences, interviewed by Outlook Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine published by
the official Xinhua news agency.

The
interviews with Major Generals Zhu Chenghu and Luo Yuan and Senior
Colonel Ke Chunqiao appeared in the issue published on Monday.

The
People's Liberation Army (PLA) plays no role in setting policy for
China's foreign exchange holdings. Officials in charge of that area
have given no sign of any moves to sell U.S. Treasury bonds over the
weapons sales, a move that could alarm markets and damage the value of
China's own holdings.

While far
from representing fixed government policy, the open demands for
retaliation by the PLA officers underscored the domestic pressures on
Beijing to deliver on its threats to punish the Obama administration
over the arms sales.

"Our
retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we
should adopt a strategic package of counter-punches covering politics,
military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms
and root cause of this disease," said Luo Yuan, a researcher at the
Academy of Military Sciences.

Not only that, but China is now openly escalating vis-a-vis Taiwan.


Chinese has blasted the United States over
the planned $6.4 billion arms package for Taiwan unveiled in late
January, saying it will sanction U.S. firms that sell weapons to the
self-ruled island that Beijing considers a breakaway province of China.

China
is likely to unveil its official military budget for 2010 next month,
when the Communist Party-controlled national parliament meets for its
annual session.

The PLA officers suggested that budget should mirror China's ire toward Washington.

"Clearly propose that due to the threat in the Taiwan Sea, we are increasing military spending," said Luo.

Last
year, the government set the official military budget at 480.7 billion
yuan ($70.4 billion), a 14.9 percent rise on the one in 2008,
continuing a nearly unbroken succession of double-digit increases over
more than two decades.

Next question: will China follow through on the increasingly populist sentiment to hurt the U.S. If the U.S. is any indication of the strength of populist anger, now may be a good time to take some "profit", or book the loss as the case may be, in that 30 Year position.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
naiverealist's picture

"Game Theory 101 just got interesting!"  What an understatement.

Anonymous's picture

China already supplyies arms to the Taliban via Pakistan. They are also behind the N.Korean and Pakistani nuclear and missile programs, and supply missile technology to the Iranians. Add to this the Chinese support to assorted warlords in Somalia, etc. I fail to see what is new (other than some rhetoric).

Anonymous's picture

Damn! So China is a wannabe US. The US created and supplied arms to the Taliban via Pakistan, helped the North Koreans and Pakistanis get nukes and sell weapons to the Iranians. Add to this the US support to assorted warlords in Somalia. What's next? Are the Chinese going to invade Afghanistan and then pay the Taliban not to attack their supply lines?

All the governments are the same... BAD. Erase the state... all of them.

Soory if the links don't go through.

Anonymous's picture

Yes, this is absolutely correct, China is selling arms to the Taliban. Correct.

MarketTruth's picture

The USA supplied arms to the Taliban to fight Russia years ago. This is a fact. And your point being ????

Anonymous's picture

The point being that the US didn't control the Taliban as it had hoped it did, it was a grave strategic blunder for the US. Another post-ww2 military conflict failing for the US among many others on the list.

Kayman's picture

So, if China wants to sell, maybe Ben could buy, say at a 90% discount. China ought to be a little bit nicer to its last best customer. Europe is telling them to take their crap and F**k Off.

Anonymous's picture

And yet both the US and the EU are on the verge of having sovereign debt crises. Not China on the other hand. They are used to third world living standards, whereas the west has been spoiled to live in first world luxury via ponzi schemes. The outlook for the west is looking quite grim.

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

The opening move has been made - it is only a matter of time before the Pawns exchange blows.

 

Windemup's picture

The game has been on for a long time. The first nuclear option was the US bombing it's own citizens on September 11, 2001 in order to secure the world's last remaining oil reserves in the middle east.

 If you think I'm the tin foil hat type then you need to watch the video of building 7 a few more times.

 

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

I do not discount that possibility Windemup , I was just using some dramatic license.

mtguy's picture

And people call me tin foil hat -you're wrapped in the shit!

aurum's picture

yeah well watch this movie and lets see if you call him/her a tin foil again

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501#

 

 

fuu's picture

I have always wondered why Northwood has not gotten more attention.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#

trav7777's picture

too many people on Rt 27 saw it happen live.

They all cannot be CIA plants.

As for WTC7, yeah, they probably pulled it.  Skyscrapers don't collapse from fires.

And, there was never an explanation, only lies.  The US gov't is either incompetent or in on shit

Anonymous's picture

for those who like their tinfoil not so loose:

ZERO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0

No More Bubbles's picture

The only ones wearing tin foil are the ones who think 9/11 was actually Bin Laden and 19 Saudi clowns.  The real conspiracy is the story "THEY" sold the profoundly ignorant and deeply gullible SCAMerican public.

arkady's picture

Oh look, a truther!

 

*sigh* they are everywhere, like cockroaches. 

WaterWings's picture

I hope your pay is worth your conscience.

johngaltfla's picture

Whatever you do, do not touch their ears or take their "beans and franks" away from a truther. They might slap you or attack you.

 

*sigh* is right....

WaterWings's picture

Yo. What gives? Your time is better spent finishing your blovel. Thousands are getting ready to slap you:

http://johngaltfla.com/blog3/2010/01/28/

johngaltfla's picture

Stupid flu. I'm back, cleaning up several chapters now...

WaterWings's picture

Your imagination is very keen. I very much look forward to more.

Anonymous's picture

Watch the Aaron Russo interview concerning his relationship with Nicholas Rockefeller.

Those who throw mud at truthers haven't done much investigating. Start with the site Physics911, then
review Pilots for Truth, especially the analysis of flight telemetry data related to the Pentagon. View eyewitness interviews that desccribe a completely different event then the "Official Story".

If you believe the "Official Story", you are absurdly
naive. Have you looked at any data whatsoever?

johngaltfla's picture

Have no fear. I won't touch your ears nor eat your beans and franks. But I will look at your sister's ass if she looks like Cameron Diaz.-:)

Windemup's picture

On behalf of the 3,000+ innocent victims of Dick Cheney and his cohorts and the innocent Iraqui citizens who were bombed mercilessly, thankyou Anon for speaking up.

The turds who want to further the hatrid are responsible for the economic collapse facing the USA today.

 

Anonymous's picture

better to be a "truther" than a lier

strike for return to reality's picture

Windemup,

A substantial portion of the American people know (at a subconscious level) 9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack, but continue (at a conscious level) to pretend otherwise.  As an example notice the use of "truther" in a derogatory manner. The term is both thrown out as an insult and an acknowledgement of subconscious agreement. A person who charts their course without regard for truth will be no more successful than a pilot who flys a plane without regard for the laws of physics.

One has to presume that at the government leadership level around the world 9/11 is correctly understood.  This includes recognizing that 9/11 is mark of substantial weakness on the part of the US government.

www.ae911truth.org

 

 

Anonymous's picture

Nobody asked what you think...

It isn't your place to shoo anybody away from here.

Go watch the videos as suggested -- the reptilian part of your brain might actually grasp it if you pay attention.

But I know it is hard to concentrate when you're busy sniping little Television-inspired labels at folks you don't agree with.

boiow's picture

what aspect of your extensive research on the subject do you disagree with.

Anonymous's picture

RE: by strike for retu...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:27
#224012

Response:

Actually, emphatically, no. No 'they' do not believe, even at a subconscious level, that "9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack".

Nice blanket statement with Zero evidence supporting it - seems to be a theme for 'Truthers'.

FYI 'Zero' also describes the percentage of Engineers/Architects that have signed that petition.

Petition Supporters as a Percent of ALL Architects and Engineers: ZERO, point, ZERO, ZERO, (wait for it...) ZERO, FIVE, TWO PERCENT (0.000523%).

Or, another way, the percentage of professionals supporting this insane concept is roughly TWO THOUSAND times closer to ZERO than it is to being a mere ONE PERCENT.

Engineers (Active) 1,600,000
Engineers (Retired) 200,000
Architects (Active) 150,000
Architects (Retired) 15,000
Total Population (Domestic): 1,965,000

Signed Petition: 1,028

I could include international E/A too, which are allowed to sign the petition, but you get the point.

strike for return to reality's picture

Talk to intelligent Americans who profess to agree with the MSM 9/11 myth ("a bunch of bored Saudi teenagers outwit the American military and force a peace-loving people to start two wars") about the facts of 9/11, and you will see fear in their eyes and understand their conscious refusal to acknowledge reality.

It may be the conflict between the subconscious and conscious of those denying reality that causes them to lash out against those who speak for the truth.  It would also explain why their attacks tend to be emotional rather than logical.  Your counter argument at least does have a logical appeal.  However, in response, I will ask you...

How many people in Nazi Germany signed a petition calling for the end of Auschwitz?

geopol's picture

9/11 has become an American enigma. For many, 9/11 remains a puzzling, inexplicable, phenomenon that defies understanding in its complexities and misinformation. Most people doubt the full truth of the 9/11 Commission’s report, but are unable to accept that people inside the government could be so evil as to allow the deaths of 3000 Americans.

In a study published in the journal Sociological Inquiry, sociologists from four major research institutions focused on one of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election: the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The study calls such unsubstantiated beliefs "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice" and considers how and why so many people linked Hussein to 9/11. Co-author Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., from University at Buffalo, says, "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

"In fact," the study reports, "for the most part people completely ignore contrary information. "The argument here is that people get deeply attached to their beliefs. Over the course of the 2004 presidential campaign, several polls showed that majorities of respondents believed that Saddam Hussein was either partly or largely responsible for the 9/11 attacks, a percentage that declined very slowly, dipping below 50 percent only in late 2003.”

The research concludes that people deeply hold on to their beliefs, and that they form an emotional attachment that gets wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality—irrespective of the facts of the matter. So given that many people in the US believe that we are the world’s best democracy it is likely that many will tend to seek self-serving justifications for wars and American misadventures and to ignore contradictory information. Therefore, it is at present cogitatively unlikely for many people to even consider that 9/11 was an inside job, or that our government allowed 9/11 to happen.

People can and do change their minds, but this often only happens with repeated continuing factual information being made available from multiple sources. Glen Beck said on national television that 9/11 Truthers were happy about the killing at the Holocaust museum and labeled us hate mongers. Beck’s statement, while completely without factual merit, reinforces emotional misinformation held by many people. These lies make it even more difficult for 9/11 truth seekers to effectively outline the realities .

 

 

WaterWings's picture

+1 Very well put.

The detractors, if not paid internet trolls, have personal issues beyond our ability to alleviate: they don't seek the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

 

moneymutt's picture

I'd don't firmly hold to 9/11 truther version of events but, as a construction person, see no evidence that definitely refutes my, and most others, intuitive sense that the buildings looked like controlled demolition, and I do see plenty of evidence that seems confirm this interpretation.

What is strange to me, is how quickly people reject the idea, not on its lack of merits or technical incorrectness but rather simply because it seems so far-fetched to them. 

A relative asked me: why would people be so crazy to think W, or some other US person would do such a thing, I asked him, a hard core Repub, if thought Bill or Hill Clinton would do something like that, he paused and said, yes, maybe he could be persuaded, if there was evidence..so I asked him, had he investigated the evidence of truther claims, he said "no"....so its just the outlandishness of the claims that make them reject, not the evidence for or against. I think its hard to get truthful, rock solid info on this, but there is certainly nothing rock solid to dismiss truthers out-of-hand.

Compare to birthers, who I almost think were created to be a conspiracy theory anti-matter to malign truthers, as if they are equivalent and cancel each other out. While I'm not completely closed to birthers claims, simply because there is not mega solid evidence Obama was born in Hawaii, I do believe there is some fairly decent evidence he was born in Hawaii (old paper announcements, etc..), and little, to no, evidence he was not (not that definitively means he was not, but you've got to prove it to convince me) And even if he was not, the conjectures, at the least, even by most birther scenarios, is that Obama was born on foreign soil to an American citizen and then, within a few weeks brought back to US, raised in US for many years, left to live with his American mother in a foreign county for several years, and then returned to US for junior high and high school while being raised by American grandparents, and then, as an adult, attended college in US and spent his working life in US. I don't know the legal technicalities of "natural born" but he was a citizen of US moment he was born to an American mother, regardless of location, and seems to have lived a thoroughly American life for all but a few years of of his young, elementary school childhood..so even if birthers are right, they have little evidence of it, and at most, they have a technicality that does not even really, in its essence, conflict with the intention of the natural born requirement in the constitution.

But then there are the truthers, who have some technical evidence of their claims, little to refute their claims, and what if they are right? They raise an issue that, needless to say, goes way beyond a guy being president who does not meet a legal technicality.

And yet, with evidence in affirmation of their claims, and the severity of their claims meriting much more concern than the birthers', people dismiss Truthers as crazy, and the birthers are on Fox News, get passing attention on CNN, networks... meanwhile, truther demonstration on 9/11 that got a protest on the order of magnitude of the Tea Partiers, completely ignored, not even to be mocked, or noted as a crazy, growing movement.

Shouldn't we decide based on what we see and hear and what we confidently confirm by first hand knowledge, or very trusted source, rather than rejecting things just because they seem far-fetched? I, for one, can't find anything to definitively reject truther claims... 

lawrence1's picture

Excellent comments.  People who really seek the truth in things are rare.

Most people are heavily invested in unrealistic belief systems and to change one fundamental belief is to essential question the entire system. Acknowledging a contradiction in one´s beliefs is avoided.  Even belief systems that are in no way religious  with respect to content share the emotional faith in the system.  If reality contact could be placed in an aerosol can and given away free, there would be few takers.  A retired psychologist quipped that he would return to practice when personality implants were possible.

 

 

 

 

Anonymous's picture

It's more subtle than that. Mix the ingredients, make them boil and add some spices, and the opportunities eventually present themselves for the interested parties.

Kayman's picture

The U.S. government has done a lot of dastardly deeds, but they did not do the Twin Towers job.

I have built steel buildings and the open-wed truss design of the World Trade buildings could not withstand the heat from the burning jet fuel and the impact damage. Once one floor weakened, the entire building(s) started to pancake and it became unstoppable. Period- end of story.

And yes, some determined Saudi Islamic Arabs did the same thing one of our homegrown boys did (Timothy McVeigh)- they slipped through the system, by doing the unexpected.

Damn this government- the Administration and the Congress, but do not divert scarce energy away from the real issues.

Dubya made sure his Saudi benefactors got out of the country and he did something real dumb, by invading an already beaten Iraq, but the U.S. government did not directly or indirectly do the Twin Towers job.

Sorry Pal(s)

Anonymous's picture

Kayman

Can't remember the exact figures, but Structural Steel only experiences a very light weakening (of the order of 15%) at the temperatures experienced with burning fuel (800C v. 2000C melting point for steel). This shouldn't have been sufficient to cause failure (or significant bowing in so far as I am aware). Added to the fact that this argument would appear to discount the central columns and treats the building as a box - which in fact so do official reports interestingly.

Can you explain in some more detail your arguement...

A very interested Physicist.

DaveyJones's picture

Kayman, please explain building 7. No jet fuel, no impact, very small & contained fire.