If the USA and China ever go to war with each other...

[Kaijyuu]

To be a criminal, you have to break a law. Secret police, the CIA, ect ect are bound by few if any laws. Thus, how can they be criminals?

They might do things you'd consider unethical, but if you knew about them, they'd have to kill you. So...

[formerdeathcorps]

"What you do defines you."

You assume a person is
1) Conscious of the sources of his thought
2) Cognizant of his world
3) Capable of free action
4) Able to calculate the consequences

You need education to consistently satisfy 1) and 2).  Not only that, this education must be constantly applied against the constant stream of business and government propaganda.  In short, this education must ingrain the habit of fearless analysis and independent thought.  No system of government reliant on injustices (inequality, coercion, and secrecy) will allow for such education to be the regular experience of the youth because it will undermine the existing system of power and block its expansion.
For 3), the person in question must have enough money, free time, sanity, and self-purpose to not be under artificial restraints.
4) isn't usually possible, even in the short term, at least not without consultation with others, logical deduction, or experimentation (in other words, efforts that often extend beyond the given person in question).
Notice how the people most able to fit these 4 requirements are the richest percent of the US population (who have most of the political power).  And yet, as a whole, this group of CEOs, generals, speculators, and politicians are the most reviled in society precisely because they seem to be the most responsible (and compared to the average person, the current generation of leaders indeed carry most of the blame) for the destructive actions of society, but continue anyways.  However, they are as locked in as everyone else; they cannot safely stop; not only do they not meet 3), they (like everyone else) can't ever do so without breaking the system and losing the material and the mental security afforded by it (for the top X%, mental security is a far stronger motivation than the actual material benefit, which is what holds back the rest of the population).  Thus, if we were to assign blame for social problems, the blame that isn't assigned to the current leaders should mostly be assigned to previous ones for establishing bad traditions.  The low-level grunts who manifest social ills deserve the least blame (since statistically speaking, they aren't even likely to be aware of all this).
Thus, to permanently break this self-reinforcing loop (which is good for no one), mass alienation is necessary (so the masses of people experience life differently than "normal") and must be quickly followed with a change in the policy and leadership of all the instruments of power (public and private).  In short, a "revolution" is needed, with the connotations of violence not necessarily implied (but likely inevitable).  This process should never be forced (since that would be highly antidemocratic) by whoever "leads" the "revolution", but this transformation cannot happen spontaneously because the removal of the existing system is only the first step.  The vast experiment that follows (which naturally creates an open society) cannot succeed without some method for groups to collaborate, and some means to oversee, synthesize, and apply the results: history shows this will gravitate around a set of leaders surrounding the strongest groups, even if the power transfer was largely spontaneous.  Hence the risk of a counterrevolution.
To some degree, the above can happen without the mass alienation bit, but it will never happen in the benefit of all (the stated purpose of a democracy); those in charge will steer everything into their own interests, even when it isn't the public interest.
Some would argue such a stance means that justice would no longer be "blind" or "impartial", but unfortunately today's justice is deliberately not "blind" or "impartial".  Just look at recent Supreme Court rulings on corporate election finance or numerous recent cases limiting compensation for victims and workers against large companies, not to mention the high rate of incarceration and policing against non-whites and poor people.  (Many such cases often are the result of wrongful incrimination or outright discrimination against easy legal targets, and statistically speaking, there are far more middle class whites, so there would naturally be more criminals who are middle class and white.)

Crime and the Paramilitaries:
The secret police of the world use the same types of tactics as the mafia to seize power, except the secret police and other paramilitaries have legal sanction.  IN criminal proceedings, mafia kingpins are the ones who take the heaviest charges.  Similarly, the leaders of the secret police are by far the most culpable of crimes (compared to the individual agents).
As for being exempt from laws, what kind of democracy allows its enforcers/bosses to stand above their own citizens?  By the above logic, such people should be under heavier legal restrictions than the average citizen.  Even if you argue the world is unsafe and such organizations are necessary, which is certainly true to some degree, such paramilitaries, by their history of operations (CIA history: Iran 1954, Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973, etc.) clearly act only in the interest of the top companies (most of the assassinated leaders were not any threat to the US people, but they did threaten US business) and politicians connected to them.

Open Society:
Open societies are great, but the key is to maintain it.  Secrecy and consolidated power offers personal advantages, usually at the cost of others, and can often be justified in times of great emergency (like war or famine).  The key, I think, is to replicate the self-reinforcement that this society uses to propagate itself to maintain the open society, even against the possibility of a counterrevolution (by coup or by law) or invasion (by military or by finance).

Postmodernism:
Origins
1) Philosophical seed of the 1920s, philosophical flower of the 1960s/70s.
2) The overall cultural tone of the 1920s was that of dismay towards the reason of the 19th century.  For this to be picked up in the 1960s/70s can only make sense in the backdrop of what was considered reasonable: war (cold and hot, direct and proxy) and nuclear annihilation.  Naturally, in contrast to the logic of the day, this seemed like liberation.
3) Considering the size of the 1960/70s protests, an intellectual movement that was naturally open to all voices could be accepted by the broadest section of the protesting masses without any submission to one group within it (which would create factions and detract supporters).
4) As such a movement's intellectuals became disillusioned with the rightward turn in Western European and US politics, they decided to sum up their lessons...taking different approaches, but mostly pessimistic ones towards the future.  They recognized political defeat, but were likely unsure on direction.  As time wore on, many of such philosophers began to adapt themselves to the politics around them.
My Opinion
1) The belief that no objective truth exists is easily disproved by math, much less any other science.  Base assumptions (axioms) can vary, but what logically follows from those axioms, once proven for that set of axioms, cannot be subject to further debate.  Similarly, people and cultures have base assumptions (which may even be contradictory), but what logically follows will exist within the framework given.  To argue that each person in the same society, or two societies in the same, interdependent world (evidence of long-distance trade goes as far back as the burial artifacts of Cro-Magnon man) have no common axioms just doesn't seem reasonable.  Of course, people have killed and died in the name of "Truth", but to argue one doesn't exist or that we cannot reach this goal is to unnecessarily hamper humanity for no reason except for the fear of violence, strife, disagreement, and war.  However, both the overt violence and cultural tensions are usually exaggerated, and deliberately so, by existing powers for their own benefit, usually by playing the role as societal leader.
2) The belief that there is no unifying narrative splinters resistance to existing wrongs (key to maintaining democracy and open society).  Even if you know something is wrong, the only step you will reach in overcoming it is finding a broad coalition in defeating it legally (the best-case scenario).  If you accept postmodernism's tenets, it becomes impossible to go beyond that electoral coalition to try to work out any solution better than what exists now (since no one will agree and it's impossible to try to forge such a consensus from so many radically different groups with shifting alliances).  Worse yet, there is no sense of progress; there is nothing to stop a counterrevolution from sweeping aside the gains made.

China and the "Economic Divorce":
I already posted what I thought on this.  It's here:

The only way for the US to extricate herself is with tariffs (which leads to a trade war, or worse, since China just lost her largest market), finding labor cheaper than China's workforce in a country more easily managed by the US (like Haiti...but that's just substituting morphine for heroin), or by forcing Americans to work on wages and conditions similar to China (which no American should accept). Nor is the trade war something easy to dismiss, the US literally produces close to nothing now (so we'd still be in debt to someone with lower labor costs than the US: the same problem will then be replicated onto another country until we recreate production), China and the US do have quite a bit of participation in joint ventures (anti-nuclear proliferation, for example, in North Korea), and China holds most of the US debt (a mass sale of dollars would trigger a collapse of the US dollar and hyperinflation). Plus, major US firms (Wal-Mart, Boeing, Coca-Cola, etc.) do conduct business with China (not that most of them are honest, but if you wish to revive US industry, they could be hit by Chinese counter-tariffs in the trade war). Thus, A direct blow to China's economy would weaken the US economy and those of all the states relying on Chinese production (most of the Western World), which would only tempt China to hasten the sale of the US dollar (to recover temporary revenue, while they still can). That could lead to a real war (one in which some Western nations may remain neutral, or even blame the US for starting it, if they believe China can cut them a better deal).

As I've said before, it technically isn't possible to separate the two economies without both crashing.  You could argue that order will eventually come out of this chaos, but the leaders of the US will take the path of least resistance, and will probably use it as an excuse to further attack US living standards and wages in the name of economic self-sufficiency.  Your idea of the "asshole tax" is effectively a tariff.  To support guerrilla warfare in another country is effectively a declaration of war.
As for the Maoist rebellion in India and Nepal, I don't think that's being funded by China; China renounced any revolutionary association with Maoism since 1976 to make herself attractive to Western business.  Of course, other countries, inspired by the China of the 1950s, are still willing to fight for self-liberation under the Maoist model (the existing leaders in Indian "democracy" or Nepal's monarchy actively repress them in the name of business or tradition).  Of course, that model is also a dead-end.
As for currency manipulation by keeping the value of the currency low, the reverse argument could be made against the US Dollar: because we are world's reserve currency, even though the US has massive public debts, the dollar has an inflated value in the world.  This allows the US to remain an attractive area for business.  If this were to be "adjusted" (with great pain to the US people), the US would effectively lose most of her financial control of the world.
Yes, the underdog position is a very comfy spot.  The US benefited from this in the 1800s when the UK was in the dominant position in very much the same way.  Japan used many similar business export tricks against US business in the 1950s-80s to great effect.  You're right in saying that we should relinquish the throne, so to speak, just to keep the USA alive, but if we do that, do understand that no one country will fill the shoes of the US so quickly (which means we'll still be in rough competition with everyone else).  China doesn't have the military capacity of the US.  Russia doesn't have the economy.  The EU is not sufficiently unified to project any cohesive force.

[Barren]

The only thing I can about this question is the Chinese are destined to rule the world. Nuff said

[SolidSnakeDog]

The only thing I can about this question is the Chinese are destined to rule the world. Nuff said

In an way,there rule the entire world aleardy.
Not by military but by policy.There have the power to say what we get and what we won't get.
Exemple of that, china make alot of games that we will never know about. (Till several years later)
There actually had a SNES many years ago that was able to connect to a satelite that can play about any SNES/NES game there wanted,(and aslo special things like playing has a girl in the Legend of Zelda for the NES and improved graphics for most games) downside is this is only for a short time. The satelite opened up each day at an certin time and close after 3-5hours after it opened up.
Other exemple is err...Robots (Yeah..robots) There got quite a few robots that only china have.
I think we got some but most are just lame toys.(And other thing like a Usine that use robots to construct cars and other things like that)

I remember...there was actually Robot pet dogs for sale a few years back. The dog looked good eneuf.
Wait...this costed 2000$??(Not including taxes..) Hell id take an computer over a robot dog...or get a real dog that cost say...form 0 to 200$?
I take this did not work so well because there was never anything like it on TV after that.
But i don't have cable so i may be worng about this.

yeah...you can say China control the world's market in some way.