Hypocritical insanity: U.S. demands China explain need for aircraft carrier
By End the Lie
The United States has more foreign military installations than any other nation on Earth.
We are currently involved in no less than five conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya. This does not include covert activity in nations across the globe and our involvement in the so-called “Arab Spring,” especially in Syria. This also is not taking into account our global cyber warfare agenda.
America represents the vast majority of NATO troops, equipment, and we carry out by far the most operations under the NATO banner.
To any remotely rational person, the United States demanding an explanation from China regarding their aircraft carrier acquisition should be laughable.
If America doesn’t have to explain the constant equipment purchases, military expansions, covert operations, and troop movements, why does any other sovereign nation?
Today Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the United States State Department, said that the aircraft carrier acquisition “is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries. It’s not as transparent as the United States about its military acquisitions, about its military budget.”
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this quote. If a black budget of billions of dollars that are never accounted for, along with trillions of dollars that just happen to go missing from the Pentagon like Rumsfeld revealed on September 10th, 2001, is transparent, then how is it possible for China to be less transparent?
Nuland revealed the mindset behind this claim in her statements, claiming that because many countries feel the need to explain themselves to the United States, China has to as well.
She says that “with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements.”
Personally, it looks to me like the higher-ups in the United States are starting to worry that our meddling in the South China Sea territorial dispute could result in China taking some preemptive action.
We are picking sides, as per usual, and this is likely to annoy and perhaps instigate the Chinese.
Nuland’s statements came immediately after China’s first aircraft carrier set sail for the first time, raising already considerable fears in Washington regarding China’s military expansion and “growing territorial assertiveness.”
The aircraft carrier that seems to be causing such a hubbub is actually a refurbished vintage Soviet ship which China has said is only going to be used for research and training purposes.
AFP slyly characterizes it as the Chinese seeking to “play down the vessel’s capability” without providing a single scrap of evidence to support this.
If they are playing down the vessel’s real capability, then AFP must know something about the actual capabilities of this Chinese aircraft carrier that they have yet to reveal.
I would be interested to know if there is anything that backs up this word choice or if it is just the usual fearmongering surrounding China and their growing military.