Nor exactly relevant to this discussion, but if we're going to debate my sanity on the CMB I suppose I'm obliged to contribute my two cents if only as a case study (gee, I'm so glad I came back, if only briefly.... )

China's doing a great deal more than buying our debt. Forcing a USN plane in international airspace to land in China, where the crew was held hostage while the plane was dissected was, in point of fact, an act of war; we chose another route. Chinas leadership has openly stated they consider themselves in a competition with the US they intend to win, and if you think that competition is purely economic and/or political you should probably understand that the "peace at any price" attitude is one thing NOT going global. China no doubt made a pretty penny when they gave Pakistan the bomb, but that wasn't their primary motive any more than when they gave it North Korea nor as they've facilitated Irans nuclear ambitions by both blocking international attempts to stop it and offering much of what they need for a price. We're all very happy America won the Cold War, but no one told China that, and they're still fighting it by economic and every other means. And winning.

I'm not saying we MUST declare war on them. If they want to stop selling nukes to people we've been at war with since China set them up fifty years ago, stop shipping us poisoned food, stop supporting our enemies (their customers) in debates about whether they gain nuclear weapons, refrain from seizing our military craft in international areas, impose existing labor and create new environmental laws that would make industries less likely to weaken America and strengthen a self declared foe be relocation, well, at that point, them owning an ever increasing share of our debt wouldn't bother me as much. We were once in the same situation with Japan, but it bothered me a lot less because they didn't have nukes, hadn't declared a showdown with us, and if they went to war with anyone they'd have to use our Army to do it. It was just economics. This is geopolitics and economics is just one dimension of that.

I don't think we should attack China. I think when they stop getting everything they want at our expense they'll do what nations with such leadership have always done: Decide they've gotten as much as they can by diplomacy and hope it's gained them the time and resources they need to win an aggressive war. "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means. " I believe a European said that.

The world is consolidating as globalism takes hold. That's why we have an unelected WTO able to make binding judgments on sovereign states. Maybe it's just the 300 million of us over here who are warped; another of the things I read on FiveThirtyEight this morning was a Mr. Renard Sextons take (from Switzerland) on the Lisbon Treatys purposes:

"When the Lisbon treaty comes into force on December 1st, the European Union will have achieved two of its key goals of the last decade -- improved coherance and a stronger common foreign policy. Among many other things, the Treaty brings major changes to two top posts in the EU, a permanent President of the European Council (rather than 6 month rotating among the heads of states/governments in the EU countries) and High Representative for foreign policy (merging the foreign policy mandate of the European Commission and the common foreign and security policy of the EU (the countries).

"In each post is a chance for strong leadership to redefine the role of the European Union vis-a-vis the members states -- particularly large EU countries like France, UK, Germany, Spain and Italy -- and carve out a bigger common space in the realm of foreign and security policy.... "

It goes on like that, but you get the gist; he seems to me to be saying things I thought given:

Yes, those who want a strong EU are dismayed by the new President, particularly because they know it was a deliberate attempt by the more powerful EU nations to undercut the very strength and centralization the Lisbon Treaty was designed to increase.

Don't sweat it, guys. It proves the EU isn't going to be the United States of Europe about as well as the relatively huge drop in global temperatures around 2000 disproves global warming. Within a year temperatures were right back where they were and rising again; I don't think the EU will turn around that quickly, but it'll happen. The choice of leaders foisted upon the EU is a reactionary holding action, and the only reason it happened in the first place is because Britain couldn't get the rest of Europe to accept what would've been a very strong President Blair.

I know that was long and off topic, but, once again, if we're going to have a group discussion of my sanity I feel entitled to rebut the arguments against.