Yes, that might be their perspective.
The USA defines her own moral and interests, not China. If the US believes it to be just, then you/we should stick the course. Of course one has to take into account consequences, etc, of saying that, but you get the point.
Martin
Last edited by Martin; 02-13-2006 at 01:35 AM.
Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant. And if it is their perspective that they are not being any more threatening than we are maybe their not really threatening us . . . Just a thought.
If both parties are threatening each other, that is escalation, not de-escalation.
If from their perspective they feel threatened or just do not like other people voicing their opinion and position in regards to, e.g. (there are other examples), Taiwan, that does not mean that their responses are less effectual. On the contrary, if they can make a case for their people I would say it is more threatening rather than less.
With that said, I am positive about China within the next 50 years, if handled correctly. Though I wouldn't support either containment nor all-out friendliness.
IMHO,
Martin
SSI, 2 Apr 07: Chinese Perceptions of Traditional and Nontraditional Security ThreatsOriginally Posted by Stu-6
In order to begin to understand the motivations and decisions of China’s leadership, and in order to behave in a manner such that we can influence them, we must try to understand the world as China does. This research is an attempt to do so by examining the writings and opinions of China’s scholars, journalists, and leaders—its influential elite. It will show that China has a comprehensive concept of national security that includes not only defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but continuing its economic and social development and maintaining its international stature....
To Quote Spock:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. China has the mind-set and wherewithal to sustain that axiom. They shoot protestors, they don't litigate with them. Recently in an outlying provence, there was some islamic unrest/agitation/suspected AQ activities. They went in and shot a whole slug fo them - end of discussion, end of story. I see no reason why China won't be the sole super power on the planet in about 40 years. They aren't burdened with the accouterments of Democracy for one thing. No flood of illegal immigrants to undermine employment and suck up benefits, no animal rights groups lobbying, no gay rights, no major, self-sustaining entitlement programs, no ACLU and NAACP, no NCAA, no FDA staffed by self-serving doctors, no separation of traditional and modern healing, no pro and anti gun groups, no drug cartels that hype disease for profit, no EPA and HIPPA regulations, no advocates for the mentally handicapped to breed freely, no civilian review boards for the police, no unisex bathrooms, no pet adoptions or pet psychologists and pet day cares and pet grooming industry, no affirmative action and no bra burning, no threats to cut funding for an authorized war simply for reasons of political gain/popularity, no halal and kosher food for their imprisoned miscreants, no costly tax-paid court appeals for convicted criminals, no public outrage and hearings over putting a pair of women's panties on the head of a detainee. They even make the families pay for the cost of the bullet to execute violent offenders. Why wouldn't such a practical people have secret tunnels and lots of nukes, be in outer space , have a dam with 9xs the output of Hoover dam and be implementing a massive road expansion project equal to our interstate system?
I'm interested in hearing about how pet adoption services weaken the Republic.
If you've ever been to China outside one of the big cities, and you actually speak Chinese --- the idea of China has the superpower of the world in 40 years is laughable. China will be enormously lucky, IMO, to have running water in all its urban facilities in 40 years' time.
Oppression does not make a Country Great
Goesh, the ability to exterminate opposition and to stifle freedom does not make China great or even a powerhouse. If it did the Soviets would have won the Cold War. Repression works in the short term no the long. The Chinese are good at business true but they are sacrificing a lot to get there. All those organizations and peculiarities of American Society that you listed as bad things, they exist because they can, because the free people of this Country want them too, and to be extreme, a Government crack down of frivilous pet grooming would be even more wasteful than the activity itself. And while you may disagree with the ACLU and NAACP, you have to give them credit for defending the inalienable rights garaunteed by the Constitution. In China you and they would have no choice but to follow the party line. China is heading for some big shake ups, I believe she is like a big fat duck on a pond, you just don't see its legs spinning underwater.
Good points, Tequila but if I were a senior military man in China, I would be looking at Appalachia, the inner cities and the depressed rural areas of the South and saying the same thing about America. I think after their roads are built, we will see Chinese carrier forces deployed - 2 for the home waters, 2 for foreign waters and one to roam.
Note that they don't even have one, carrier or even realistic plans for getting one. As comparison, India has 2 already I believe.
Also their Appalachia consists of 75% of their population and 85% of their landmass. A bit of a difference, and one the Chinese are well aware of.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks