Obtuse is I think an excellent word for it... but I'm curious, where exactly has anyone said that "that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow"?
Printable View
All have withdrawn from the disputed area.
That there has been no confrontation before is because there was no clamorous demand by any party that the seas are there. It is only when China used military might as against Vietnam that the littoral nations realised that unless one took action, by default the Seas would be usurped by China in the similar fashion as they did to the 100 Yues territory.
The ships sent by the Chinese are said to be reconnaissance vessels. Are they civilian? Are they like the Russian trawlers which too were said to be civilian? Isn’t it a typical Communist way to cloak military activities under a civilian garb? You can fool people once, but you cannot fool them all the time!
Many countries do fish illegally in other’s waters. Call it poaching if you will. There is nothing new about that. However, when a nation, as did China against Vietnam, use military might, it does ring alarm bells. It is no longer poaching. It is asserting rights, even if those rights are most dubiously claimed.
There is no doubt that China wants to ‘show up’ the US as a nation that it is what they call ‘paper tiger’, or in other words, all gas and no go!
It is true that the US taxpayers’ money goes to ensure that other nations are not swamped, but then the US also gains from the spinoff. It proves to the smaller nations that are about to be swamped that the real McCoy still remains the US. True, it appears that these nations do not swoon over the US, but in many forums, they go the US way and indirectly indicate that the US is Mohammed Ali, the greatest that moves like a butterfly!
What makes it that the US perception that China and Iran are not a threat?
If the US is unduly getting hypersensitive, what is the threat to China, if one is to ask that question, with the manner in which she is militarising in such a hell fired hurry and aggressively planting their flag all over their neighbourhood? China is a large country and its neighbours are in no position to threaten China’s existence. So, where is the threat?
While countries may not agree with the US foreign policy, there is no nation that believes that the US military is out of proportion. The world, grudgingly if you will, accept the concept that the US is the ‘global policeman’ and none are in a position to challenge it and, if indeed if that be the case, they are nowhere close to have a military ‘out of proportion’ and in fact is woefully short.
It is true that the US is not keeping the sea lanes open. She is keeping the sea lanes open as per her strategic perspective. It could be, as per some, immoral, but then who is there to challenge her strategic aims, more so, when the same converges with most of the littoral nations. China has shot her bolt by her meaningless aggressiveness and the littoral nations are not impressed!
Indeed if many nations see that the US is being merely Don Quixote tilting against windmills, how come they are siding with the US? Indeed the US goes by her own strategic objectives, but is it US’ fault that their objectives converge with those of the littoral states?
The Chinese are entitled to pursue her strategic objective, but if that does not converge with theirs and instead with the US, are the littoral states wrong to side with the US?
If China is faced with ‘insecurity’ and wants to ‘come out’ and it does not converge with the security of the littoral state, then it is China’s problem and if the littoral states find some other country with which they find convergence, then so be it. No reason for China to cry foul since she, as it is , is fouling the waters!
It is a canard that India has a substantial navy and the British has a Navy beyond her requirement. India is developing her Navy and is still years behind. The British Navy has been withered so badly that one wonders if they have a Navy at all. They do not even have an operational aircraft carrier to safeguard her overseas territories. So, what exactly brought you to your inference unless it was to alarm and display that you are knowledgeable?
It is another bogus claim that China can be cut off from her maritime interest in Africa and the Middle East. What is Gwadar port in Pakistan and the port in Myanmar all about that China has built and the railways and road connecting them (or planned to be connected) to China? Cosmetic or that act is of an enduring and loveable soul like Mother Teresa? Let us not fool ourselves to prove a point that is bogus and contrived!
7th Fleet was parked in Manila? I thought it was being said by those who claim to be in Philippines that the Philippines was dead against any US presence in their country? How come Philippines has a change of heart? Very off and very convenient to sometimes say that the Philippines are dead against US presence and when convenient say that the US is swarming all over!!!!!!!
The US policy has changed. It is now peer to peer and not subordinate.
That is why we all love the US.
As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.
It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.
Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!
I have said trade is a must.
I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!
Maybe this may help
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...egic-depth-910\
That apart, bareboned maybe this is it:
Strategic depth is a term in military literature that broadly refers to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.
The day they started flexing their muscles.
What would you say about the claims to the South China Sea?Quote:
The sub story is a bit overstated; I can't see it inflaming any tensions with China. There will be a ritual denunciation and business will go on as usual.
The idea that China intends to "grab all" seems a bit over the top, as is the belief, widespread in much of the world, that the US intends to "grab all".
Chinese birthright?
And that converted the US from one thing into another?
Complete nonsense of course; if old maps and artifacts were a reasonable basis for a territorial claim, Italy would be claiming sovereignty over England and Spain over Mexico, among many others. Of course the nature of nations is to not back down, so there will likely be a lot of talk and pushing and shoving for many years to come.
Classic bit of diplomat-talk, from the statement of the Philippine foreign minister...
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...gh-shoal-issue
Conjures up the vision of the sailors growing old out there while the diplomats argue over who's going to leave first...Quote:
Somewhat later, the second white Chinese civilian ship had decided to leave the area so that only one white Chinese ship remained.
The meeting with Ambassador Ma last night resulted in a stalemate as we had demanded of one another that the other nation’s ship be first to leave the area.
Try and focus for a second, Ray, there's a good chap. This is from the post by Carl. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him:
Does this mean Carl is a Chinese?Quote:
I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.
The idea that I, as some internet nobody, even a half-Chinese one, am going to force war upon the world is intriguing.
At long last, Ray, have you no shame?
Dayuhan,
I heard a similiar comment on MSNBC from one of their many comical spokespersons when they tried, as you, to dismis this event as mere poaching. They, like you, simply embrace the anti-government, everyone is right, but our competitors and foes. If you want to simply be provocative, feel free to do so, but there is an ocean of difference between a rogue fishing ship poaching, and state sponsored intrusions that are supported by their Navy. Fortunately, people who have to consider what this means to their security interests can't afford the luxury of burying their head in the sand.
I guess the question comes down to how much control the US actually needs to exercise over the South China Sea. After all, it is not our territorial water either.
Several interesting (to me, anyway) issues all touch this topic:
1. Spheres of influence: All major nations have spheres of influence. This is reasonable and smart. The questions and conflicts arise around issues of how large should any particular nation's sphere be, how they define their unique role within that sphere, where spheres overlap, how those who live within these spheres feel about that foreign intrusion of policy and presence, etc. We live in an age where the US has grown used to exercising a global sphere of influence, at least for certain issues. Other states that are rising in power are seeking to expand their own spheres of influence. Is ours too large, or are our expectations too extensive?? How do we deal with the overlaps that will naturally occur? This is an important, dynamic issue, and one we need to deal with logically. The most illogical position would be to assume that the status quo of the Cold War would endure as a new normal.
2. National interests. Closely related, but nations have interests, which is why they worry about spheres of influence. Sometimes these are shared with other nations, sometimes they are neutral, and sometimes they are in conflict. Knowing clearly what ones own true and vital interests are is important to keep one's own appetites in check. Appreciating the interests of others is equally important. I don't think the US does a very good job on either count in recent years. The largest contributor to US problems in this regard is the post-Cold War adoption of the belief that we make ourselves safer when we make others more like us, thereby making such conversions a vital interest. This is such a "born again Christian" approach to foreign policy. We are so excited about what we find to be so wonderful for ourselves, that we make a royal ass of ourselves by hard selling the same to everyone we deal with. As a counter I offer that "we make ourselves safer when we are perceived as the nation most dedicated to helping others to be more like themselves." This is the essence of the principles of liberty and self-governance our nation was founded upon.
3. Control vs. Influence. Control is in the eye of the person on the receiving end. I suspect we are perceived as a little to a lot too controlling just about everywhere.
4. Vulnerability. The US is so used to being big, rich, strong and powerful. But rising states adopting relatively low-cost counters to out big, rich, storng, powerful platforms make us feel vulnerable. We don't like that feeling. That is natural, the real question is what we do about it. Currently our approach is to simply spend more to make us even bigger, stronger and more powerful, even though it is no longer a reasonable cost validated by a true threat to do so. Like a gambler doubling down on losing hands in an effort to catch back up. Time to perhaps play a new game. Our national security is based on far more than just our military might, and to over spend building big, expensive, vulnerable platforms not only weakens other aspects of the equation; but if placed to the test and defeated, even in part, by smaller asymmetric means, we will lose so much credibility and influence that it could be a sea-change event. It has happened many times before, even in recent times. When Spain lost her Armada; when the French fleet was defeated at Trafalgar; when the Russian fleet was crushed by Japan; when Japan's fleet was crushed by the US; etc. Why would we push such a large, vulnerable target so deep into an opponents face so as to dare him to prove how vulnerable it truly is?
National leaders have recognized that the US is at a strategic turning point. They have directed a "pivot" of focus from Europe toward the Pacific. But I believe it is still only a half-step in the right direction. We have refocused our military, but we have not yet rebalanced and refocused our Ends-Ways-Means as a whole for engaging the world. The logical time to have launched such a major review was during the Clinton administration. It might have saved us a great deal of trouble if we had; but better late than never. This is not a Democrat issue or a Republican issue, as both sides of the aisle are equally culpable. Similarly, this is not a Defense vs State issue, as again, each are equally culpable. This is a national issue and an issue of national importance. It may well play out some day in the South China Sea, but it will affect us all.
How the US Navy deals with naval issues as we execute this pivot is far too important to leave to the Navy to decide. Same with our Air, Land, Space, Cyber and SOF forces. Each will see the problems through the lens of their own equities, and will overly push for solutions that make sense in that context. Time for a new, larger context to balance this all against.
Chinese fishing boats do this all the time. They've been doing it for decades. There have been many, many incidents... boats get impounded, fishermen get arrested, the Chinese government presses for their release. If they have Navy (or in this case non-Navy) assets close enough, sometimes they push in. The basic message is - and has been - that they intend to fish anywhere they want. Does there have to be anything more?
The problem is that when people outside the region suddenly notice this long-running drama, they react as if it's something new, some upping of the ante, some new move that requires a response. In some quarters we hear opinions that suggest that anything but a chest-thumping showdown would be cowering defeat and anything less than hysteria is burying your head in the sand, as if there is no room between.
So we have it... this has been going on a long time. Sometimes it gets noticed by the world, sometimes not. Does it need a specific response, and if so from who? That's the question, no? I'm personally more worried about exaggerated responses than insufficient ones, because I think they'd do little or no good and potentially a lot of harm.
There's room for concern, but the moment our response shows fear - and no mistake, chest-thumping bluster is a sign of fear - we create more troubles than we solve.
Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?
No... it is rather like this: (I quote)
I think I'm bang on here.Quote:
(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.
And the other one is, well...you know...a Chinese. Draw your own conclusions.Quote:
Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?
No... it is rather like this: (I quote)
(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.
I think I'm bang on here.
There has been quite a lot of comment here and analysis elsewhere, albeit some months ago, regarding the use of non-naval ships in incidents in this maritime area. IIRC IISS published an Adelphi Paper on the growth in para-military / non-naval / law enforcement vessels in the Pacific; sometimes with very odd aspects, like US Coast Guard ships carrying Chinese law enforcement staff in the Bering Street area.
So this latest incident with Chinese maritime surveillance ships comes as no surprise.
One of the big issue in the South China Sea is the lack of information on whose ships are where and what are they doing.
Vietnam's maritime safety bureau or whatever it is called has several very modern, state of the art, Swedish built maritime surveillance aircraft and is one of the few countries that has the capability to gather and process the information. Incidentally the USCG has a few of them too.
I am 95% certain the aircraft sold isthe Saab 2000 MPA:http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Airborn...Saab_2000_MPA/
No not really.
You did raise some issue about war, or was I mistaken?
You will forgive me, but you to talk in riddles and forced cynical humour. For a simple soul like me, it is difficult to cut through the fog that you generate.
I think you did say you were Chinese or did I read you wrong. If so, a thousand pardons.
Backwards,Quote:
war is inevitable within the next ten years
Your quote.
I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!
Quote:
While China has, over the past two decades, made impressive overall progress towards improving relations with its Southeast Asian neighbours, mounting tensions over these competing claims threaten to undermine its charm offensive. Following the aggressive manoeuvres by five Chinese vessels against the US ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable in March 2009 in the South China Sea, developments in those waters have attracted greater diplomatic and press attention. Many observers see China’s behaviour in the South China Sea as symptomatic of an increasingly ‘assertive’ diplomacy.
http://www.iiss.org/publications/sur...na-sea-debate/Quote:
The sovereignty disputes are about more than simply who owns particular features. They involve major themes of grand strategy and territorial defence, including the protection of sea lines of communication, energy, food and environmental security. They may also be linked to rising populist nationalism. The stakes are too high for imminent resolution; the rulers of states with maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea are convinced that compromise is not in their national interest. Rather, they (along with states without claims and non-state actors, such as energy companies) focus not so much on dispute resolution as on dispute management, with the aim of preventing conflict and preserving freedom of navigation and over-flight.
Quote:
Throughout history, control of the seas has been a prerequisite for any country that wants to be considered a world power. China's military buildup has included a significant naval expansion. China now has 29 submarines armed with antiship cruise missiles, compared with just eight in 2002, according to Rand Corp
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0103211602.jpg
Quote:
The Chinese military embarked on a military modernization effort designed to blunt U.S. power in the Pacific by developing what U.S. military strategists dubbed "anti-access, area denial" technologies.
Quote:
In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao unveiled a new military doctrine calling for the armed forces to undertake "new historic missions" to safeguard China's "national interests."
Quote:
China's technological advances have been accompanied by a shift in rhetoric by parts of its military. Hawkish Chinese military officers and analysts have long accused the U.S. of trying to contain China within the "first island chain" that includes Japan and the Philippines, both of which have mutual defense treaties with the U.S., and Taiwan, which the U.S. is bound by law to help defend. They now talk about pushing the U.S. back as far as Hawaii and enabling China's navy to operate freely in the western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and beyond.
"The U.S. has four major allies within the first island chain, and is trying to starve the Chinese dragon into a Chinese worm," Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military commentators, told a conference in September.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...582060996.htmlQuote:
The U.S. also is considering new land bases to disperse its forces throughout the region. President Barack Obama recently announced the U.S. would use new bases in Australia, including a major port in Darwin. Many of the bases aren't expected to have a permanent American presence, but in the event of a conflict, the U.S. would be able to base aircraft there.
An interesting point.Quote:
Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?
Could it be that they have a sanctuary elsewhere where they can safely hotfoot to in case the situation gets too hot to handle?
I know this for sure that people with backup in life are very bold.
As per psychology, those who have no problems to fight for their existence, tend to be the ones with esoteric ideas and claims and great ones to display bravado! They, after all, have nothing to lose!
Pathetic!
That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):
Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.Quote:
I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.
My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.
Your further statement:
Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".Quote:
It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.
Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.
The yanks are not allies that can be relied upon.
Maybe not in my lifetime but certainly Hawaii will become contentious (like the Falklands is to the Brits now) and will be granted independence.
If the Russians want Alaska back they will probably get it.
The 'frontline states' had better get together and form a bulwark or they will get gobbled up piecemeal.
Oh yes, remembering MAD, they better get their own nukes and line them up and aimed and ready... and have the balls to use them.
Might as well give the US back to the Red Indians (I do not know what is the PC word for it, but I am told there is one!) Forgive me if I have erred!
Then none can grouse!
And there will be no Yell of 'Dollar Imperialism' as we use to hear in the earlier days!
And hearing them here with greater finesse than the old days!
Wow! I'm being quoted as an authority. This is great. My mother won't be surprised but will my brother ever be impressed! Are my views really being used as representative of "more a few Americans"? On the off chance that they are, maybe I should explain something.
The passage you quoted, twice, could be viewed as a prediction of war I guess, if you are not a careful reader. That is my fault since I should write with the expectation that uncareful readers abound. What I should have written was "could" instead of "will", as in "J-20s could be flying around picking off American jets" rather than "J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets". That would be more clear and would more accurately reflect my opinion. After all us opinion leaders and makers bear a weighty responsibility. But in my defense, you could have J-20s picking off F-18Fs in situations well short of wars. American aircraft, mainly recce planes, used to get picked off regularly in the Cold War by many countries we weren't at war with, Russia and North Korea being two. Red China got three in 1967 or 1968 I believe.
But since my opinion carries such weight nowadays, I'll state what it is concerning chances of war with Red China in 10 years. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could run the gamut from an all out destroy both countries exchange of nukes to something like the navel (I used that word just for you BA) war we fought with France around the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries to Operation Praying Mantis to amity on the order of that we have with the Aussies.
One of the big reasons for the uncertainty is we don't have a clue what is going on in the upper reaches of the Chinese regime. So we have to try to divine things from actions. The actions of late have been a big naval buildup in the face of no threat, continuing aggressive and provocative actions at sea and a lot of very belligerent talk. Those things worry me.
There, the sage has spoken.
So you are piggybacking?
Passing the blame on others?
Why did you not explain it so in your post?
Was it convenient not to do so?
Quote:
Your further statement:
Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".
Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.
There you go again.
Nothing upfront.
Neither here nor there.
Even the CCP believes in this type of approach!
So, you are a........?
It is not a life or death issue, but it is always good to know the truth!
The Indians I used to work with called themselves and other Indians, Indians, or they would use the name of the tribe they belonged to or tribal members. Who cares about PC? Besides, "The Native Americans are coming! The Native Americans are coming!" doesn't have nearly the dramatic impact of "The Indians are coming! The Indians are coming!"
So you are a troll?!
Maybe.
Notwithstanding, some stuff you write still interests me. You are still not that worthless as you claim!
Could I say trolls also contribute?
Guess what? I did go out on a tour of Malaysia and Singapore. Great fun and great education, to say the least!
Met a lot of Chinese including a relation who is a full blooded Chinese and not something here or there! Believe it or not, very rational and intelligent!
Don't mind my post. I am merely replicating your style; sadly my style is no patch on your sophisticated neither here nor there and saying things that means a lot and yet cannot be pinned down. ;)
You are the expert!
:Bow to the Guru:
That's funny, I wondered exactly the same thing about you after you pm'd me about that Indian forum where you posted a question about Christianity. I thought maybe you were some kind of Chinese provocateur or something. What a modern marvel is this social media. I actually run the whole CCP circus from a trench behind my garage, while stuffing my fat face with microwave pot roast.
Seriously though, just like the Tamil movies I used to watch as a kid, sometimes when I read your posts I have no idea where you're coming from, but you seem to be enjoying yourself. I guess the same could be said about my bull####. Still, I can only speak one language, so you're smarter than I'll ever be.
with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.
The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.
Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.
Regards
Mike
If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.
CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?
I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.
Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?
I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!
Amer-Indians did manage independently to invent the wheel, but used them on toys. Unfortunately, for their military capabilitries, they never received the Irish saying that "guns are dangerous toys". Otherwise, Cortes would have been met by cannon - and the rest would have been His Story (that is, Montezuma's). :)
Anything having Indian in it is fine. :D
But consider Canada, where all "status Indian groups" are First Nations. So, a "status Indian" must then be a "First National".
The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming ! :eek:
------------------------------------
The Chinese are coming !; the Chinese are coming !
And, to illustrate that, we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, "The Issue of South China Sea" (June 2000), in five parts - and still the official statement of the claims:
(1) Its Origin, The Issue of South China Sea
(2) Historical Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands
(3) Jurisprudential Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands
(4) International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands
(5) Basic Stance and Policy of the Chinese Government in Solving the South China Sea Issue
As a counter-point, here are two articles - viewing the Chinese claims less favorably ;) - written by the guy (Jerome Cohen) who provided us with our Chinese Communist Law textbook in the late 60s.
2010 Cohen, China's Claims to the South China Sea
2010 Cohen, China and its Ocean Disputes
Regards
Mike
[QUOTE=Ray;134812]Some guy I don't know directs me to a forum I've never heard of to talk about a topic he didn't want to talk about on the forum where the question was originally asked and has essentially rephrased into a different topic? I'm not that gung ho. Why didn't you discuss the question here if you were so interested? Or ask your chums to join SWC?Quote:
If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.
Fair enough.Quote:
CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?
The movies were listed in the Straits Times as, "Tamil Movie". There wasn't much on TV back then, so you'd end up watching whatever was on. Stating that I'm monolingual and still managing to show off that I'm a linguist. You can't beat that, really.Quote:
I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.
Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?
I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!
I hope this opportunity to prove your courage and your worth, uh, on the internet, has been as enjoyable for you as it has for me.:)
I don't think any opinion stated here has any inherent credibility. I pointed out that one might expect those with the most to lose from a given threat or potential threat to be the ones most concerned about it. In this discussion, for whatever reason, that appears not to be the case.
I do suspect that those closest to the events in this case may have been following the situation more closely for a longer time than some others in the discussion, and that this may have something to do with the attitudes displayed, but that's only conjecture.
People on all sides of these questions point out what could happen. I'm sure that those in China who want to see greater spending on naval forces routinely point out that somewhere down the line the US Navy could be interdicting Chinese merchandise exports and commodity imports in waters far outside the range of current Chinese military capability. Probably some have real concerns about that possibility - when someone has a knife near your neck it's small consolation to note that he hasn't used it yet - and probably some have material vested interests in greater military spending. The same is true in the US: some who talk up the China threat are probably really really scared, and there are probably also some who have a material vested interest in seeing greater spending aimed at combating threats. In each case those who actually make decisions and have influence over the opinions of others (that would not include us, we're just a few folks yakking on the internet) need to maintain equal wariness of the potential threat and of those who would exaggerate that potential threat to serve their own interests.
Obviously many things could happen in the next ten years. My insignificant guess, though, is that the next ten will look a lot like the last ten. There will continue to be low-level incidents: fishing boat intrusions, arrests of fishermen. pressure to release arrested fishermen, harassment of exploration ships, occasional games of chicken. An actual shooting incident involving ships or aircraft is quite possible. I would not expect any such incident to escalate: none of the parties involved have anything to gain from combat.
I'd expect the US Navy to continue sailing task forces through the SCS, and to continue holding both bilateral and multilateral exercises with SCS border states. The Chinese will continue to denounce each event.
The Philippines will buy a few more retired coast guard cutters from the US and will try to upgrade them with missile systems. They may try to buy a few ships, though not necessarily from the US (the Italians have offered frigates that would suit and probably be cheaper than anything the US could offer). The Philippine F16 purchase will continue to be tossed around but may not go anywhere; the cost of both acquisition and operation is high, supporting systems would have to be in the package, and they wouldn't really change the picture much.
The Vietnamese will beef up coast-based radar and missile systems (I personally think the Philippines would be wise to take that course too, instead of prioritizing high profile ships and aircraft, but I don't make decisions), and take delivery of some submarines. Other SCS states will continue upgrading their navies as economic conditions permit, as they have been doing for the last few decades.
The Chinese will issue the mimeographed ritual complaint with every acquisition, while stocking up as much gear as they can. They'll be a presence in the SCS, and will probably volunteer more assets for anti-piracy work, partly to protect their shipping but largely to gain experience with operations in distant waters.
I don't expect the Chinese to gobble anyone up or to invade anyone. Not much to be gained by it for them, and high potential costs.
Of course there are many jokers in that deck, the most prominent and most likely being significant internal upheaval in China, which could go any number of ways with a wide range of outcomes, all completely beyond the control or meaningful influence of any outside party.
You may persist in saying there is no threat, but their perception of threat is more important than our ever so impartial assessment of threat, and they perceive a threat, justifiable or not. We do maintain significant military forces in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, and along their key commercial arteries in the Middle East... would we feel threatened if they had forces in similar proximity to our mainland and our vital commercial routes?
The US maintains an enormous Navy in the face of no threat. The Russians, British, French, Italians maintain significant navies in the face of no threat. Actual or aspiring major powers with extensive maritime trade maintain navies, threat or no threat. Been that way for centuries, why would it change now?
Carl, I come from an area where the word never was often used in defiance but not in an educated sense. I learnt to never say never.
Yes indeed the countries surrounding China must create local alliances and develop/acquire the weapons to keep Chinese hegemonistic tendencies in check. I would also suggest that they as a group start to agitate for the liberation of Tibet.
The US won't do anything significant... so these nations must accept that in their time of need the US cavalry will not come riding to their rescue. Like the anti-communists in Hungry they will be sitting on their roof tops waiting for the US aircraft that will never come.
Taiwan is becoming like a irritating piece of cellotape stuck on the US finger. Can't shake it off. Well it won't be long now before the 'smart' guys in DC figure out a way to dump the Taiwan problem.
As an added note to all this, the annual Philippine/US military exercise kicks off tomorrow off Palawan, about 500 km south of Scarborough Shoal.
The Philippines refers to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea.Quote:
Some 6,800 troops — 4,500 American and 2,300 Filipinos — are expected to participate in this annual exercise, which includes computer-simulated command post exercises, multiple field training exercises and humanitarian civic assistance projects in pre-selected areas in Palawan...
... The venue of the actual training exercises includes the West Philippine Sea (also South China Sea) off Palawan where both forces will be pursuing amphibious exercises; and gas and oil platform defense and retake.
Of course the exercise has been planned and publicly scheduled for months, which raises the possibility (not certainty) that the Scarborough Shoal confrontation was deliberately provoked in time to coincide with the exercise. That raises the question of why the Chinese would want to do that.
While we tend to focus on the messages China may be sending to its neighbors, the US, etc, one possibility (again not certainty) is that the primary target of the messaging is domestic. Could the Chinese government be trying to hold up what they call an effort to push Chinese fishermen out of their traditional fishing grounds while at the same time masses of imperialist running dogs are staging war games in the vicinity as a way to cultivate a perception of threat and persecution, and to promote nationalism and patriotism?
Obviously there are numerous unknowns in that picture, and that may have nothing to do with what's going on... or it might.
JMA,
How is it in the interest of the smaller states in the region to confront China in regards to Tibet? What do they gain from that?
As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.
Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.
I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.
Isn't that for the Taiwanese to decide? Self-determination and all that?
In a sense yes, and they also flash it at their own people: using an external issue to promote nationalism and patriotism and distract from domestic shortcomings is by no means a new tactic. For that reason among many others, I very much doubt that the current Chinese political dispensation has any desire to try and forcibly reclaim Taiwan.
Self determination much like it applied to the American Confederacy. Mom still gets a vote when baby decides to leave the nest. That is an internal issue they need to sort out on their own; and its good for everyone if they do that peacefully. But if Taiwan decides to play hardball, they may find they too have bitten off more than they can chew. We should not do anything to embolden Taiwan to make bad decisions, and currently I believe we do just that.
But yes, China the matador plays to a global audiance, and that certainly includes their own populace as well. We enable that game as well.
Diplomatic confrontation of a bully is about all they are able to do. The other reason is that the fate of Tibet awaits the weaker states as they are gobbled up in the not too distant future. It is probably wise for these states to decide right now wether they are going to capitulate or not go down without a fight.
Good explanation Bob. This exactly why all nations (plus the remote states of Hawaii and Alaska) must realise that they can place no trust in a relationship the USA. For the US everything is negotiable... and they will sell one time allies down the river without conscience.Quote:
As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.
Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.
I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.
I suggest the Chinese like to play the game. They know that the US is already a spent force (intellectually and psychologically) and when they have built up their navy they will just shoulder the US out of the way with barely a shot being fired.
The US 'bull' is an exhausted and an all but impotent shadow of its former self.
I would suggest you take a little time to study how the British empire collapsed when they being virtually bankrupt and stabbed in the back by their supposed ally the USA 'lost the will to maintain their empire'. It was as much a case of psychological exhaustion than anything else.
Then I would suggest you look at how the Brits at the height of their power maintained the balance of power in Europe by supporting those at risk from the larger more aggressive states.
Then fast forward to the post Soviet era and learn what the smaller vulnerable states to Russian hegemonic intentions are attempting to do to prevent being once again being gobbled up by an expansionist Russia.
The bottom line is that all the smart guys in DC quite frankly don't have a clue. Its pretty sad really.
JMA,
Do not judge the U.S. by our recent actions. They do not define us.
As to the British Empire, their decline was their own. Like the US they had a foreign poiicy model designed for an era that no longer existed, and the costs of empire came to exceed the benefits, and they wisely converted to the Commonwealth and tucked in behind to let the US take on the onus of leadership. Unlike the US, Great Britain lacks the tremendous security and natural wealth of the US, nor the depth and diversity of populace. The US is still very much a young bull, we're just sorting out how to deal with the next phase. Don't make the mistake of reading too much into our lack of grace in that transition.
As to our reliability, we need to actually move on from the emotionally charged, ideologically defined thinking of the Cold War era to an approach that is much more practical, pragmatic, and tied to clear assessments of our interests and the interests of others. Mature powerful nations in history have played this balancing game well, and certainly Britain plays it better than most still.
In regards to Alaska and Hawaii? Don't hold your breath on anyone even seriously considering they could make such a play in any foreseeable future.