USA's focus on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria has given China a fifteen year respite from conflict with USA to develop its economy and its military. This has been a good outcome of 9/11 which has saved the world from the prospect of a large conflict between China and USA.

How many people remember the incident of April 1, 2001 when a US spy plane was forced to land in China and the crew detained. This could have portended a period of intense conflict between USA and China but the issue was eliminated from the screens after 9/11.

In the meantime the USA was over-extended militarily and financially by 2 and more wars and spent $ 1 trillion on killing hundred thousand+ Muslims.

While this was happening China grew its economy, its military and its status. Even now USA is in no position to militarily challenge China because it is still engaged in interminable wars and has also decided to commit economic war on Russia.

In the current world political environment China can engage in the current domination of island acquisition in its own sphere of influence. Furthermore, the USA cannot be sure Russia will not join in if there is a conflict involving its neighbor and ally China.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-9-11-spared-china-dangerous-duel-america-15488


Quote:

Take a step back for a moment. Before the shocking events of September 11, think back to the other big international event of 2001—that of the U.S.-China standoff during the Hainan Island incident. Relations between the two nations, clearly set to decline as they no longer shared a common foe in the Soviet Union, seemed destined for dark days. As Mr. Ching observed for The Diplomat magazine in 2011: “Ten days after the crew was returned, Bush decided on a major arms deal for Taiwan. . . the biggest arms package since his father decided in 1992 to sell F-16s to Taiwan.... An article in the Washington Post on June 22, 2001, reported that ‘China’s leaders are increasingly concerned that Washington and Beijing are headed for a confrontation as China emerges as an economic and military power in Asia.’ “The article, citing both Chinese and US officials and analysts, reported concern that ‘shifts in attitudes in both nations seem to be pointing to a showdown.’... With the United States already under attack, the Bush administration’s attention was no longer focused on China as the next enemy. Instead, it redirected its attention to radical Islam and Al Qaeda’s operations around the world. The fact is, it’s not going too far to say that China owes a huge debt of gratitude to Osama bin Laden. After the September 11 attacks, the United States launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which, so far, have cost well over a trillion dollars and taken the lives of 6,000 US soldiers.

'World spared from USA China conflict for 15 years'

Good old Obama. Signing the agreement to let them continue their CO2 emissions to 2030, when they'll look at it. Guaranteeing peace. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 2:12pm:

'World spared from USA China conflict for 15 years' Good old Obama. Signing the agreement to let them continue their CO2 emissions to 2030, when they'll look at it. Guaranteeing peace. ;)

Obama had no choice because per capita emissions in China are still much lower than USA, one third USA and Australia rates. India with current very low emissions is the elephant in the room with population growth around world average rate and a propensity towards coal fired power generation.

http://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwiKS3BRCU-7XQ75Te3NoBEiQAA2t_xIAF6f8UXzye3IC-H8xN5jWEz7K9CHz6ZWLGsz3W02EaArW-8P8HAQ

Are you still that gullible that you believe per capita emissions are more important than a countries overall emissions?

' China            10,540,000

United States      5,334,000

Australia                 409,000'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

You think China's 30% of global emissions is better than the USA's 15% and Australia's 1.15%?

Quick get Australia to stop emitting CO2 today, that will obviously fix the problem if it is only per capita emissions that count. /sarc

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

Are you still that gullible that you believe per capita emissions are more important than a countries overall emissions? ' China            10,540,000 United States      5,334,000 Australia                 409,000' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions You think China's 30% of global emissions is better than the USA's 15% and Australia's 1.15%? Quick get Australia to stop emitting CO2 today, that will obviously fix the problem if it is only per capita emissions that count. /sarc

Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average.

Svengali wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

USA's focus on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria has given China a fifteen year respite from conflict with USA to develop its economy and its military. This has been a good outcome of 9/11 which has saved the world from the prospect of a large conflict between China and USA. How many people remember the incident of April 1, 2001 when a US spy plane was forced to land in China and the crew detained. This could have portended a period of intense conflict between USA and China but the issue was eliminated from the screens after 9/11. In the meantime the USA was over-extended militarily and financially by 2 and more wars and spent $ 1 trillion on killing hundred thousand+ Muslims. While this was happening China grew its economy, its military and its status. Even now USA is in no position to militarily challenge China because it is still engaged in interminable wars and has also decided to commit economic war on Russia. In the current world political environment China can engage in the current domination of island acquisition in its own sphere of influence. Furthermore, the USA cannot be sure Russia will not join in if there is a conflict involving its neighbor and ally China. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-9-11-spared-china-dangerous-duel-america-15488 Quote: Take a step back for a moment. Before the shocking events of September 11, think back to the other big international event of 2001—that of the U.S.-China standoff during the Hainan Island incident. Relations between the two nations, clearly set to decline as they no longer shared a common foe in the Soviet Union, seemed destined for dark days. As Mr. Ching observed for The Diplomat magazine in 2011: “Ten days after the crew was returned, Bush decided on a major arms deal for Taiwan. . . the biggest arms package since his father decided in 1992 to sell F-16s to Taiwan.... An article in the Washington Post on June 22, 2001, reported that ‘China’s leaders are increasingly concerned that Washington and Beijing are headed for a confrontation as China emerges as an economic and military power in Asia.’ “The article, citing both Chinese and US officials and analysts, reported concern that ‘shifts in attitudes in both nations seem to be pointing to a showdown.’... With the United States already under attack, the Bush administration’s attention was no longer focused on China as the next enemy. Instead, it redirected its attention to radical Islam and Al Qaeda’s operations around the world. The fact is, it’s not going too far to say that China owes a huge debt of gratitude to Osama bin Laden. After the September 11 attacks, the United States launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which, so far, have cost well over a trillion dollars and taken the lives of 6,000 US soldiers.

any article that refers to China and Russia as 'allies' can be happily binned or used as toilet paper.

Svengali wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average.

Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be.

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Svengali wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average. Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be.

You are just being defensive because you are in an industry that is a high emitter.

Svengali wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

You are just being defensive because you are in an industry that is a high emitter.

Absolutely Hilarious. I'm retired, Dufous. :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Svengali wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average. Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be.

'per capita' has got to be the most mind-numbingly pointless measuring stick in the debate. If ACC is real (not that it is) it is affected by quantity, not the politics of per capita nonsense.

IN fact, 'per capita' is the clue to let you all know that ACC has always been about imposing guilt-trips on first-world countries that can only be assuaged with... yep. Money. Trillions of dollars so it can be wasted, stolen, misappropriated and lost by the third-world crap-holes that are third-world for a reason.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

lee wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 5:30pm: Svengali wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average. Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be. 'per capita' has got to be the most mind-numbingly pointless measuring stick in the debate. If ACC is real (not that it is) it is affected by quantity, not the politics of per capita nonsense. IN fact, 'per capita' is the clue to let you all know that ACC has always been about imposing guilt-trips on first-world countries that can only be assuaged with... yep. Money. Trillions of dollars so it can be wasted, stolen, misappropriated and lost by the third-world crap-holes that are third-world for a reason.

The guilt of developed countries is real. All developing countries together would have to pollute for a thousand years at their current rates to equal the pollution already emitted by developed countries since industrialization.

Svengali wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

The guilt of developed countries is real. All developing countries together would have to pollute for a thousand years at their current rates to equal the pollution already emitted by developed countries since industrialization.

Then let's give them good clean coal and modern plants for cheap electricity, rather than let them keep living with their dung fires.

The USA will get into conflict with Russian long before it does with China.    While the USA are mired in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria.  Russia:
- Anexxed Crimea from Ukraine.
- Invaded Georgia
- Threatened Belarus
- Muddled and played in Syria - this is actually quiet smart.  They went in for a few month, weakened the Syrian Opposition (mainly US backed) pretending at striking ISIL, and got the hell out!  This is .... tactically ... almost brilliant. 

And in comparison, setting up missile system and airports on uninhibited island in South China Sea?  Watermelon comparing to melon seeds.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

lee wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 5:30pm: Svengali wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average. Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be. 'per capita' has got to be the most mind-numbingly pointless measuring stick in the debate. If ACC is real (not that it is) it is affected by quantity, not the politics of per capita nonsense. IN fact, 'per capita' is the clue to let you all know that ACC has always been about imposing guilt-trips on first-world countries that can only be assuaged with... yep. Money. Trillions of dollars so it can be wasted, stolen, misappropriated and lost by the third-world crap-holes that are third-world for a reason.

Economic malarkey has no greater equal than the per capita debate.

Been through this before - the CHIMP (Chinese Industrial Man/Person) emits massively higher per capita pollution that the Australian ever does...... the farmers with ox carts are pretty innocuous.... Gillard and Co sold us another pup....

In 'pollution' do we include the damming of the upper Mekong in China, that affects the water quality and life quality downstream for three other nations, and disturbs the annual ebb and flow of life-giving foods such as rice and fish?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

lee wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 5:30pm: Svengali wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Your argument is that countries with large populations should cease emissions so countries with smaller populations can emit many multiples more than world per capita average. Not at all. I was merely pointing out your incongruous statement about per capita emissions. It is the overall CO2 emissions that may affect AGW/CC, no matter how small that effect may be. 'per capita' has got to be the most mind-numbingly pointless measuring stick in the debate. If ACC is real (not that it is) it is affected by quantity, not the politics of per capita nonsense. IN fact, 'per capita' is the clue to let you all know that ACC has always been about imposing guilt-trips on first-world countries that can only be assuaged with... yep. Money. Trillions of dollars so it can be wasted, stolen, misappropriated and lost by the third-world crap-holes that are third-world for a reason.

Correct except that the idea, like any good business plan, is to hijack as much of that money flow while it is in transit as possible... that's currently dubbed 'the global economy'.

If we take the example of The Deputy Sheik of Auburn Syndrome ( He's not the True Mahdi - he's just a very naughty boy) - we see clearly that the banks lend massively etc on a 'business plan' with future anticipated profits - the Sheik then waylays, in Alan Bond style, as many millions as possible into his private company/trust, that acted as a 'go-between' and accepts a 'finder's fee' etc plus ongoing 'management etc' fees - and The Sheik then starts living the life of Riley without having turned a single sod......

Same thing happens on a global scale, with some organised  crime gang  business reaping massive rewards as 'fees' for 'finding', 'moving', 'handling', 'administration' etc.... even charities have come under the microscope with as little as - the highest figure I've seen - 19% ending up where it was intended.

Read Michael Marin's "The Road to Hell", for an eye opener about the UN and charities.

Svengali wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

The guilt of developed countries is real. All developing countries together would have to pollute for a thousand years at their current rates to equal the pollution already emitted by developed countries since industrialization.

Mind you - a bunch of Indonesian farmers burning off for land-clearing mid-last year exceeded Australia's entire annual CO2 output.