China would have to be extremely stupid to join this order the globalists are trying to create.

@ProvokingThought - Most of the leaders in the west can't even understand the thought of the people they represent so expecting them to understand that of peoples they've never interacted with and who have no similarities is just stupid.

@JabezPrayer2009 - 

"  the US has enough problems than to try to be confrontational with emerging world power China.  (I think Bush and Cheney had the opposite view.) "

While I would not call for isolationism, as far as military interventionism throughout the world the bottom line is we do not have the funds to keep it up. We are on the same path as the former soviet union was in breaking their own backs (through it is not a apple-apple comparison).

We have been in relations with China since Richard Nixon and one thing that is undeniable is how intertwined our economies are. I don't see where the idea that Bush and Cheney who I am not a fan of ,had designs on anything but economic relations. Now if you are talking about countering espionage and cyber terrorism coming from China, that is one level. If you are talking about the compromise of Los Alamos, that is another. But war or cold relations with a country that may almost be a forced ally? I don't think that is realistic. That is why in many instances we turned a eye to human rights abuses.

Henry Kissinger has always been a well known globalist and is very fond of international governance...that is not even in question. Remember he was Sec. of State for Nixon. Dr. Kissinger being a diplomat chooses his words with care. He meant what he said.

@mcbery - power is fluid. There has been a shift in fluidity because of our fiscal irresponsiblity. I read this morning they have identified 95 billion dollars of waste this year alone in the federal government spending. 95 billion of waste/fraud/misallocated funds. The number is so large yet with the surreal number we deal with people are not even phased. And that is why China and Russia are back in the place they are. This has been a couple decades in the making . Remember , we are the one who has been at war while others have not been. We have amassed debt beyond what we can repary.

Now in a way we again gain some power because of the amount of debt we have, it is beyond what could be called and actually recovered. Past the point of no return, so it forces people to work together. Hope that makes some sense.

On another note, I think the Kissinger strategy was for people to go into a trance listening to him......

@ProvokingThought - I was referring to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike.  Some at the time speculated that the real audience for the Iraq war was China, as a warning that we would strike first if China was seen as a threat, much like Vietnam and other potential "limited wars" were supposed to prove to the Russians we had the resolve to defend ourselves with nuclear weapons if needed (as well as oppose communism everywhere in the world).  This particular strategy of the past was articulated by none other than Dr. Kissinger in a paper on Nuclear Strategy.  That the Bush-Cheney approach to foregn policy was far less cooperative, more militant, and more reactionary seems fairly certain, but I could be wrong.

@JabezPrayer2009 - I don't really follow the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations that closely. Obviously I have heard of them, are aware of their existence, etc, but in comparison to G-20, G-6, G-8 are they more like the worlds most powerful businessmens meetings  and ambassadors/policy groups as compared to the actual governments? If I remember many of the original intent was to keep the power based in anglo or anglo saxon power (been a while)

I think your real concerns are the "G" summits , the meetings of the world bank and to a lesser extent the UN and our actions in ceding to UN mandates.

The Bush's have been openly pushing for a new world order for decadesusing free trade as a front imo. Free trade and internationalism are two different creatures imo. I think our larger worry may be BRIC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6514737.ece

I think BRIC is really lead by Russias push of vengenance and payback and China sees that. But BRIC is a potential threat if we do not get our fiscal house in order. A loaded gun threat.  I think that unless Brazil Russia and India offered to absorb losses of China that would be incurred by displacing the dollar as the world monetary unit than they will not pursue it as a "must do now" option. But if we decide to just print our debt payment to them, BRIC will pull the plug on the press...and that could start a war.

@saturnnights - then you are familiar with BRIC ?

@saturnnights - http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/index.html

ive never really been able to listen to this idiot