That is plain spoken. Sure enough.Originally Posted by Backwards Observer
Since most people here seem pretty comfortable with Ray's bull#### appeals to anti-Chinese bigotry, reckon this'll be my last post here. As a corollary, I also suggest a collective pulling of heads out of asses in general.
That is plain spoken. Sure enough.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Yeah, well...rotsa ruck with the rebalancing to the uh, "Indo-Pacific". From what I can see of the current level of regional fingerspitzengefuhl you're going to need it. I could be wrong. Sure hope so.
A rather intellectual analysis on display.
Nothing to refute, but an overflow of bile.
An unique void in facts!
Indeed, the countries on the SCS rim are all wrong and bigoted.
The Chinese whipping out maps with dots and dashes are the only thing that is acceptable on this Planet Earth, right?
Remember Sima Qian's, China's 'grand historian' is based on myths and hearsay and the Chinese believe that it is irrefutable history!
Last edited by Ray; 06-18-2013 at 05:34 PM.
I'll let you answer this yourself chief.
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...=13460&page=23
If others find your interminable hogwash credible, more power to 'em. Enjoy
There is no one here who is above criticism. There is no one here who is not wrong on occasion.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
A cloth is not woven from a single thread - Chinese proverb.I'll let you answer this yourself chief.
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...=13460&page=23
If others find your interminable hogwash credible, more power to 'em. Enjoy
China’s 100 Years of Humiliation has left a deep mark on the collective psyche of Chinese citizens. The 1982 Constitution preamble gives lament to this national humiliation at the hands of foreign powers.
This national shame is so deeply ingrained and shameful that government spokespeople even today are quick to find “insults to the dignity of the Chinese people” in routine differences of diplomatic opinion, whether meeting with the Dalai Lama, selling defensive arms to Taiwan, or criticizing China’s Internet policies or raising issues of human rights. The manner in which China warned Nations insisting that they boycott the Nobel Prize Ceremony honouring Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident and winner of the Nobel peace prize indicates that the Chinese or Han are incapable of accepting any action that is not to China’s gain or adequately laudatory to pamper and massage the Han ethnic and cultural 'superiority' and pride!
Therefore, for the Chinese citizens and the Diaspora, any discussion that does not necessarily hold China in favourable light, even when such a situation cannot be contrived to show China in favourable light, they find it as “insults to the dignity of the Chinese people”.
This unique Chinese or Han mindset has to be understood in the correct perspective since sinocentrism, which is the ethnocentrism of the Han people and Han culture, or the modern concept of zhonghua minzu wherein areas outside the Sinocentric influence were called Huawaizhidi (化外之地), meaning uncivilized lands.
While modern Chinese people will outrightly deny this mindset with the 'correct degree' of incredulous astonishment, yet all actions indicate that the mindset is alive and thriving. Their lecturing and hectoring the world with pious platitudes and mealy mouthed homilies over even minor matters where they don't agree, is an indicator in this direction.
To wit, while there are many example, suffice it to mention the fierce indignation displayed by China over the US Naval exercises with the Philippines and Vietnam Navies. These naval exercises followed shortly after the the Scarborough Shoal flare up, which China claimed to be theirs based on the map of nine dashes that is said to have no historical basis. In short, it was the usual indication that China is the sole arbiter of what is right and any deviation to their viewpoint would be ‘insults to the Chinese people’ It maybe mentioned, in passing, that the unique map of Nine Dashes have no historical antecedent and yet, the Chinese insist and demand, if you will, that their view aone is the sole and correct view and other views be damned!
In the context of the Scarborough Shoal incident that indicates China’s newfound aggressive ‘muscle’, it is exemplified by the cavalier, supercilious and culturally arrogant attitude of a Chinese Air Force general Maj. Gen. Zhang Zhaozhong who boasted to the China’s media about how its military took control of Scarborough Shoal, sealing it using a layered “cabbage (security) strategy” and transforming the island 124 miles west of Zambales province into an exclusive fishing ground for Chinese fisherman.
Not satisfied by grabbing territory on contrived maps, he went on to showcase the insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions of China by indicating that the tactic could be adopted in other islands that are occupied by the Philippines.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/n...s-ayungin-next
In other words, the message to the world was that China can, with impunity, merrily grab territory through ‘layered cabbage’ tactics, and others should merely meekly accept it as the rightful and moral thing that China has done.
However, if others wanted to indicate that China was contravening international law and norms, and even show some force in indicating that international norms should be adhered to, it became, for China an ‘insult to the dignity of the Chinese people’! That is the indicator of the twisted Han arrogance and supercilious superiority meanderings that the world is expected to grin and bear it!
The Chinese mindset is keen to right the wrongs of history as they perceive, now that they are a reckonable economic power and moving stridently to challenge US’ military superiority. They are out to prove their make belief theory and thrust it on the world as an Gospel truth that China is indeed the "central nation" or (traditionally) the "middle kingdom" and the world revolves around China and must revolve around China since Han culture deemed it so!
Therefore, any dispelling of this mental attitude makes them livid and they blame it on others' paranoia!
China will try to dominate the Asia-Pacific region to copycat the United States assumed domination the Western Hemisphere. China will attempt maximising the power gap between itself and potentially dangerous neighbours like India, Japan, and Russia. China will attempt to ensure that it is so powerful that no state in Asia has the wherewithal to threaten it and will do all to crush ‘splittists’ within like the Tibetans and the Uighurs, so that the Sinocization is complete and there is no internal threat. At the same time, China pursuing military superiority will not embark on war, although that is always a possibility. Instead, it is more likely that Beijing will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to neighbouring countries, which it is already doing and have done in the past.
Alongside, a much more powerful China will do everything feasible to try to push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific region
That is basically the rationale for China spying along the US coast and entrenching itself in nations, not only around the US, but around the world in a competitive superiority mode with the US, to prove to the world and to its own people that what the US can do, China can also do and, with a slight warping the facts, prove China does it better.
China is in the avatar of the ‘new kid in the block’ and it will do everything to indicate to the US and the world that it can copy and even outmatch the US.
Therefore, China spying on the US in US waters is not surprising!
The Han imagined cultural superiority will engine their ascendancy over the ‘uncivilised’ lands and people!
Or so they most ardently believe!
Last edited by Ray; 06-19-2013 at 06:40 AM.
As is so often the case, these claims take a core of truth and blow it far out of proportion.
Certainly the Chinese are being pushy with the Philippines, the one among their neighbors that can be pushed without consequence. On the other hand, referring to the pushing around Scarborough and Ayungin shoals as "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions" seems a little over the top.
Certainly the Chinese want to be recognized as a global player and a dominant regional force, but "the world revolves around China and must revolve around China" is way overinflated.
I don't think the issue of China sailing ships into a US EEZ has any real significance at all n terms of gaining intelligence. They're doing it because we do it. They have no way to stop us from doing it, so they reciprocate in kind just to show that they can. It's best ignored.
The talk of China trying to "encircle" the US is really pretty ridiculous and does not deserve to be taken seriously. Does anyone really think that Chinese investment in the Canadian energy industry is going to turn Canada into a Chinese satellite? That countries that buy Chinese weapons are suddenly going to use those weapons according to the dictates of Beijing? That aid packages or Chinese companies managing western hemisphere ports are somehow a threat to American security?
Get real; stay calm.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
One has to get really real in these turbulent times or the turbulent times will get real with one!
Calmness comes when one has a grip over the events. Letting things drift with benign and sublime indifference and Buddha like calmness is an ideal mixture that can be catastrophic.
One should always heed to the Chinese proverb
不闻不若闻之，闻之不若见之，见之不若知之，知之不若行之；学至于行之而止矣
(Not hearing is not as good as hearing, hearing is not as good as seeing, seeing is not as good as mentally knowing, mentally knowing is not as good as acting; true learning continues up to the point that action comes forth)
Those who are aware of events are also aware of the Scarborough Shoal being just ONE of the events, amongst the many that have been taking place serially around the periphery of China and its self assigned claim lines. I am sure I would not have to enumerate them, they being known to all in the know of international events.
My interpretation of the same (serial events exerting hegemonic demands) would be literal of this Chinese proverb
长江后浪推前浪
the Changjiang River waves behind drive the waves ahead.
One should be safe than be sorry.
Chamberlain comes to mind!
Last edited by Ray; 06-19-2013 at 03:04 PM.
It's a multipolar world with competing and overlapping interests both....
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes...hina-excellentChina is India's largest trade partner.
....
But their overall aim must not be to balance trade with China, or target a particular trade deficit. Rather, India should target improvements in its own productivity and competitiveness. Once that happens, its trade deficit with all countries (including China) will automatically fall. Lesson: target the productivity gap, not the trade gap.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/n...mic-ties-indiaChina can also help India's drive to improve its infrastructure, he said.
"At present, we both face the heavy tasks of developing the economy, improving people's lives and reinvigorating the country. In seeking great neighborly relations and common development, we will not just benefit our own peoples but also create new opportunities for other Asian countries," he said.
While many regional powers are wary, it's important to remember that the relationships are complicated and there are overlapping interests as well.
I've read polls that show while there is concern about elites and power dynamics, the Indian and Chinese public view their respective peoples fairly well which is heartening.
Madhu:
Overlapping interests, true enough. But intimate trade relationships haven't stopped countries from clashing in the past.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
What would you propose that one do, beyond clutching the pearls and rending the occasional garment? I'm not suggesting indifference, but proclaiming "encirclement" where no such thing exists or is threatened is hardly a productive approach to anything. Chinese aid to Jamaica or arms sales to Ecuador or energy investments in Canada or port management contracts in the Bahamas pose no threat to the US. The US has no reasonable way to prevent them and no real reason to prevent them. What's to be gained by hyperventilating over them.
Yes, we are all aware of the events. It's still hard to see them in any light that would constitute an "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions". That's a term that one might apply to, say, the US binge of 1898, which saw the annexation of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The Chinese effort to grab a few uninhabitable rocks hardly seems in the same league. Is it a threat to the US? Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
I am afraid no one is ‘hyperventilating’ and such a comment would be indicative of the fact that one has not quite understood Political Realism, which is the bedrock of Geopolitics. Without understanding that, one would be going round and round like Tony Lumpkin.
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
Let us observes issues with pragmatism and realism.
On the issue of morals and viability of policy and action which seems to subsume your defence of China, let us visit history.
Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement politics were inspired by good morals and motives. He wanted Peace at all cost ignoring the progressive militarisation of, and consequent expansionism of Germany to embrace all territories that historically had Germanic roots. And the result of Chamberlain’s moral and peace inspired policy? World War II bringing devastation and misery to all!
On the other hand, Winston Churchill’s policy, arguably with lesser morality quotient, brought about Peace that was eluded in the first place by faulty appreciation of the geopolitical reality and motives of Hitler’s Germany.
Now, compare your analyses that you advocated in most of your posts on China - US equation with the above historical analogy.
By your analogy, we should be Chamberlain like and overlook the rapid militarisation and expansionism pursued by China. Peace must be at all costs! But then can I mention that we cannot foresee or predict the future, but must we forget the footprints on the sand of time as left to us by history, that too, recent history?
While no one is advocating going to war, yet, one cannot let one’s guard down and allow a Frankensteinian situation to overpower! All one is suggesting is that one should merely maintain a balance of power and status quo in the scenario of the Aggressive Rise, euphemistically called “Peaceful Rise” of China, basically adopted by China, for those who can see, to lull all into a complacent state of mind, and energetically assisted by those who fear ‘fear’ itself and be Ostrich like to find solace!
It is true that China’s increasing influence around the countries in, what could be called, US’ backyard, is hardly currently worrisome. Neither were Hitler’s incursions on Germany’s periphery worrisome to Chamberlain since it was not directly impinging on UK’s sovereignty or security.
One could argue that Hitler walked in with the military, but China is all 'peaceable'. True. But then that (What Hitler did) was the way it was done in those days to extend one’s power. We live in modern times these days. Such crude activities are not par for the course. It is economic aggression to start with and then………
You ask – Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
The US, for starters, could ‘contain’ (‘encirclement’ is such a four letter word for liberal sensitivity) China and impress through actions that each nation has a right to its territory and ocean space as per international law.
You may well ask, and justifiably so, as to why should the US bother about other country’s territorial integrity, for after all the US is not the ‘global policeman’?
The answer to that is simple.
Indeed, why should the US bother about other countries? The US could just hunker down in Continental US and watch China take its place as the Global Policeman.
And. as is wont, in such scenarios of global policemen, the US would be jumping to China’s tune! The Pied Piper and the rats (and what lemmings do elsewhere) of Hamelin town in Brunswick comes to mind!
Surely, Americans, who are so proud of their way of life – American way of life – and the painstaking sacrifices of it citizens and military personnel endured to maintain their ideals, would not find it delightful to have a scenario where Americans jump to the bidding of the Chinese!
I might as well remind that the Chinese have already made deep inroads in the US economy and I am yet to find an American who is rapturous with glee at this ‘heavenly’ state of affairs.
Therefore, I am not surprised that the US is an adherent of Miguel de Cervantes' theory, where he is supposed to have said - Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.
Last edited by Ray; 06-21-2013 at 07:45 AM.
Indeed, so many would have been 'cooked' on this forum, had it been a Chinese run show!
That is the beauty of the US and the West!
I am told that they call it Freedom of Speech and Thought!
It is unfortunate that you do not find it so invigorating as I do and instead prefer things to be governed by a 'Thought Police' as in China!
They, the Americans, are not narrow minded either. They also seem to believe that one must let 'Hundred Flowers Bloom' in the literal sense and not the way Mao used this theory of his!
I am sure you would not find it correct, given the Chinese historical antecedents of treating others as barbarians and converting them to Han and calling them 'cooked' barbarians!
I am glad that those who run the forum are not influenced by the Chinese policy of 'cooking' 'barbarians, as you find me to be, since I do not subscribe to the Han mode of existence and thought!
Lest you think I am talking through my hat, here it is about 'cooking' people as is done in China
The Chinese distinguished between ‘raw barbarians’ (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the ‘cooked barbarians’ (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the ‘cooked’ Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild ‘uncooked’ Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.
Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages.
This is from Olsen's Ethnoculture of China!
Also, the poor Americans have not understood the Theory Of Legalism that governs China and the Chinese mindset, the world over!
or in other words:
Fa (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law or principle"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law, not the ruler, ran the state, a statement of rule of law. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
Shu (Chinese: 術; pinyin: shů; literally "method, tactic or art"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behavior might help them get ahead, other than following the 法, or laws.
Shi (Chinese: 勢; pinyin: shě; literally "legitimacy, power or charisma"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalis...ese_philosophy)
May I quote from Drake's Drum
Drake, he's in his hammock
And a thousand mile away . . .,
(Captain, art thou sleeping there below?)
Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
And dreaming all the time of Plymouth Hoe.
I hope you are still around here since you said you have done your last post.
Last edited by Ray; 06-21-2013 at 07:50 AM.
BO,
I am glad that SWC is not a Laogai (Láodňng Gǎizŕo (勞動改造/劳动改造) ) !
If you feel it should be so and I should have been 'cooked' eons ago, then consider me as another Liu Xiaobo.
And thank God that this is an American/ Western forum!
I thank God for small mercies!
And this type of mentality that you display is what worries.
I dread the Chinese way of 'organising' the people to ensure 'law and order and harmony'!
I prefer the western Wild West, if you will, as a way of life. Better that than a slave or a Pavlovian Dog- totally conditioned to reflexes!
I rather be a soaring bird, than live in a gilded cage with timely food and grooming and yet, singing pretty to the tune of the Master at his whims and fancies!
One cannot be a performing monkey!
Last edited by Ray; 06-21-2013 at 08:35 AM.
The article cited above; this one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ
is an example of the kind of hyperventilated hysteria that all too often obstructs rational analysis.
The claim that China is "encircling" the US is, based on the evidence presented in the article, objectively and rationally absurd.
I said nothing of morals; a subject I try to avoid to the greatest possible extent. Neither did I defend China, I simply pointed out that that a reasonable and practical response has to be based on a realistic assessment of the alleged threat, the realistic response options, and the interests and constraints of whoever is doing the assessing. Hysterical hyperventilation does not assist that process, and often obstructs it.
The analogy id yours, not mine. Are you seriously comparing the occupation of Scarborough Shoal with the Anschluss?
You can't maintain both the status quo and a balance of power, because the status quo is an enormous imbalance of power, tilted toward the US and its allies. The Chinese want to make that imbalance smaller, maybe even to achieve parity in their own immediate neighborhood. Is that really a problem? If so, what exactly are we prepared to do about it? Getting involved in an unnecessary arms race would have serious consequences of its own, on the economic front.
China's raise is neither as peaceful as China pretends nor as militant as you pretend, but in any event it exists. There's no reasonable way to prevent or obstruct it, so it has to be managed, much as the rise of the Soviet Union was managed. That means choosing the areas of confrontation, if there must be any. It may mean backing off in situations where cost exceeds benefit, and being assertive where (and if) real and immediate threats exist. There were plenty who shouted "appeasement" when the US elected to let the Russians take Eastern Europe rather than starting WW3... but the Soviet Union is gone, and the US is still there, and we didn't have WW3.
Where do you see Chinese "economic aggression" in the Western hemisphere?It is true that China’s increasing influence around the countries in, what could be called, US’ backyard, is hardly currently worrisome. Neither were Hitler’s incursions on Germany’s periphery worrisome to Chamberlain since it was not directly impinging on UK’s sovereignty or security.
One could argue that Hitler walked in with the military, but China is all 'peaceable'. True. But then that (What Hitler did) was the way it was done in those days to extend one’s power. We live in modern times these days. Such crude activities are not par for the course. It is economic aggression to start with and then………
There's nothing even remotely illegal or inappropriate in China investing in Canadian energy projects, or sending aid and loans to Jamaica, or selling arms to Equador or Peru, or in Chinese companies bidding for port projects in the Western hemisphere. This is normal business among sovereign states, and other states, including yours and mine, do the same thing on a regular basis. There's nothing even vaguely resembling a threat in it, and any American attempt to constrain or prevent these actions would be both ridiculous and an invitation to a Chinese teat-for-twat attempt to impose similar restrictions in their own neighborhood. There's no point in it. So of course you keep half an eye on what goes on - it hardly warrants more than that - and maybe get interested if a situation emerges that warrants it. Rants about "encirclement" is neither justified nor useful.
Use "encirclement" if you like; in the unlikely event that a liberal wanders by they will just have to bear it.
What actions would you propose to impress? No need for US actions in the Senkakus; the Japanese are capable of dealing with that on their own, unless it escalates way beyond the current level. The US is not going to try to push CMS vessels and Chinese fishing fleets out of Scarborough Shoal or the Spratlys; they know it and so do we. That's why they've completely ignored the increased tempo of US port visits in the Philippines... there's almost always been a US ship or two in Subic over the last year or so, but it hasn't reduced the tempo of Chinese activity at all. They know exactly what they can get away with, and they keep the level of push-and-shove below the point where it would conceivably justify a US response. I don't see anything to be gained by playing games with them over it. Never makes sense to draw a red line that you know you haven't the political support to enforce.
What makes you think that anyone jumps to the bidding of the global policeman? For all the years of US global policemanship, did the Chinese ever dance to US bidding? Did anyone? I don't think the Chinese want to be global policeman, nor can I imagine why anyone would want such a thoroughly thankless, profitless, and pointless function.
You seem to be overlooking the possibility that there may be a level of interaction between hunkering down and retreating to a fetal position and trying to challenge and confront over every minimal provocation or pseudo-provocation.
Yes, Americans bitch and moan over it in million-part harmony, and when they're done they run off to Wal-Mart to buy another cartload of China-made goods. If spending is voting, the figures indicate that the actual US attitude toward Chinese participation in the US economy - expressed in actions, not words - is not far off rapturous glee.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
You have not addressed anything that I have mentioned in the post and instead have gone off on your favourite hobby horse - tangential arguments that have no connection, but esoteric rhetoric!
Unlike you, I have addressed your posts directly.
When you understand Political Realism one could discuss and not subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
To remind you:
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
If Americans, including expatriates like you, have given up the ghost and are kowtowing, what chance has the world got?
If your contention is the contention subscribed by and taken to be the majority of US citizens' contention (which I don't think it is), it would be right that US gives up and let China rule the roost and US dances to its tune!
I am ready.
I am learning Mandarin, because you all, the mightiest nation of the world as represented by you, is ready to accept, as you, that its the Red Sun Rising - in deference to your benign and calm sagacity that is so crystal clear and totally in sync with the Tea Leaves reading of the Mandarins in Beijing!
All power to you and your ilk!
You are right when you state - till it escalates.
But would it not be too late as it happened before WWII?
BTW, do you check your electric connection, when your house burns down?
I am sure you do!
I must be wrong and you must be Sir Oracle!
You write -trying to challenge and confront over every minimal provocation
May I remind you
A drop in the ocean would lead to the ocean surging and turbulent because of that missing drop being allowed to flow in.
Every drop makes and ocean, in case you did not know!
I said it since you were grandstanding on how China was so benevolent and all that!I said nothing of morals
Last edited by Ray; 06-21-2013 at 10:34 AM.
Not.
All very well, but that seems a bit incongruous coming from someone whose comments on the subject are riddled with opinion and assumption, and artificial polarities.
Who's kowtowing? That's an example of an artificial polarity: the assumption that one must either confront at every possible opportunity, or kowtow. Failure to acknowledge the rather extensive range of options in between is hardly consistent with the goal of "political realism".
Again, the artificial polarity: failure to confront at every opportunity equates to surrender, anyone who falls short of the ideal of perfect sinophobia is "kowtowing". How is this consistent with "political realism"?
I represent nobody but myself, but while I've little faith in the wisdom of American policymakers, I do hope they've the common sense to choose their points of confrontation, if indeed any is called for, with a bit of wisdom, and to act with some semblance of rationality and objectivity, rather than being carried away by the purveyors of panic. I certainly do not think any significant number of Americans want the US to get embroiled in the current maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and I think that position is sensible.
I don't rewire my house because someone shouted that everything must be wrong. I evaluate the wiring on its own merits and determine whether intervention is required or will be useful. If it's not, I let it be. I do not rewire my house because my neighbor has a bad circuit, though I might provide my neighbor some judicious assistance if he requires it.
Those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and those who see a threat behind every blade of grass are likely to collapse from exhaustion and over-exertion by the time a real threat presents itself. The world is a messy place. Anyone who tries to order it to their liking will both fail and fall: nobody could sustain the required commitments. Political realism requires that one choose one's battles and act when it matters, not every time some convoluted combination of assumptions says it might someday matter. Trouble is infinite. Resources are not.
Where exactly did I say any such thing? Specifically, please.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 06-22-2013 at 01:22 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
I cannot help but believe that this is one of your usual signature refrain. Lamentably, with great restraint, I am forced to conclude that this is your traditional hollow abbreviated avatar of customary bizarre one liners.Not.
Fiddlesticks, if you will!All very well, but that seems a bit incongruous coming from someone whose comments on the subject are riddled with opinion and assumption, and artificial polarities.
You have failed to comprehend what I wrote?
It shows!
My comments are based on studying links, reports, news and papers; and I only take the liberty of giving an opinion, when goaded by posts that foundation itself on personal opinion or anecdotal meandering demanding to be taken as the Gospel, or rubbishing other's opinion by the virtue of living as an expatriate somewhere near the scene of action, little realising that an expatriate cannot ever have the same psychology and aspirations of a native born.
Who is Kowtowing, you ask?Who's kowtowing? That's an example of an artificial polarity: the assumption that one must either confront at every possible opportunity, or kowtow. Failure to acknowledge the rather extensive range of options in between is hardly consistent with the goal of "political realism".
As I see it, it appears to be the one who has failed to differentiate between truth, rationalised by reasoning and opinion, based on wishing thinking.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, while you sing paeans to the Chinese, you clearly do not understand the compulsion that manifests itself in the formulation of the US foreign policy.
The US foreign policy has pivoted around the theory of 'containment', from the beginning of the Cold War and is extending itself to the current era. It is a time tested policy, and regrettably for you (given that you find US Foreign Policy mandarins to be cretins), has been very successful.
That policy aimed at a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies and countering "Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world" through the "adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy." Such a policy, predicted, would "promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power."
And the US collapsed!
Now, are you sure that the mandarins in Washington were cretins and imbeciles?
They are applying the same to China.
But then it requires scholarship to realise the import of such a policy.
Any tendencies that falls short in such a scholarship, leads to lamentable conclusion leading to opinions that fail to fathom Political Realisms and instead encourages meandering muddling with total superficiality and even drivel.
If one understood Political Realism, then one would comprehend the compulsions and obligations that chart the US foreign policy and strategic goals. Those who don’t understand Political realism are the ones who crank the morality or the peace monkey grinder and are avid followers of the Chamberlain line! Such a line is indicative of abdicating the ideals of one’s country, and as an extension one's country's foreign policy, and in your case, I presume, the US. I am but a bystander.
It is for Americans to realise that obligations of citizenship is not merely singing a rousing rendition of 'The Star Spangled Banner', but also to live up to the ideals of the US and the obligations that the US has inherited, acquired, coerced over its history.
With each passing day the traditional boundary between the natural and the artificial becomes less distinct. Look around and you will realise it.Again, the artificial polarity: failure to confront at every opportunity equates to surrender, anyone who falls short of the ideal of perfect sinophobia is "kowtowing". How is this consistent with "political realism"?
Kowtowing is because it is case of one who has failed to differentiate between truth, rationalised by reasoning and veers to opinion, based on wishing thinking.
If one could comprehend Political Realism, then one would realise that in it lies the verities and realities international political powerplay.
Good that you have faith in yourself and not in the American policy makers.I represent nobody but myself, but while I've little faith in the wisdom of American policymakers, I do hope they've the common sense to choose their points of confrontation, if indeed any is called for, with a bit of wisdom, and to act with some semblance of rationality and objectivity, rather than being carried away by the purveyors of panic. I certainly do not think any significant number of Americans want the US to get embroiled in the current maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and I think that position is sensible.
Bully for you!
Yes, Americans would be chary of getting embroiled into any action that is not well thought through and is convincing, given their experience in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But then that was active intervention.
Here it is the time tested 'containment' that sceptics of your genre were equally cynical about. But the mandarins of the State Departments and the President, ignoring the sceptics, chiselled away and the USSR collapsed! A dangerous adversary and a competitor, was rendered impotent and for some time to come.
But, that was not all. The mandarins who made the Foreign Policy also have learnt a lesson from their attempt to 'actively' contain or 'actively intervene'. They have tweaked the policy of containment to an upgraded version of Commodore Perry's 'gunboat diplomacy'. And that is yielding results.
It is an universally accepted truth that the human nature desires to excel and be on top of the heap. Extend that to nations and the US and China are doing just that.
It would be wishful imagination that one can succeed in convincing one's own nation to back off and sink into the lowest layer of the heap. Neither will those who run the Nation, nor will the citizens accept that. Why? Because of another psychology facet - self esteem!
Nothing builds self-esteem and self-confidence like accomplishment. And if one believes that abdicating and abandoning historical ideals, values or primacy for the sake of peace at all cost is the right way, then one would have a second guess coming!
Man is an ambitious animal, though I will concede there are the scattering of wimps too.
Of course, your reply is not out of the ordinary and is very signature like of your comments on this forum.I don't rewire my house because someone shouted that everything must be wrong. I evaluate the wiring on its own merits and determine whether intervention is required or will be useful. If it's not, I let it be. I do not rewire my house because my neighbor has a bad circuit, though I might provide my neighbor some judicious assistance if he requires it.
Yes, I am aware that you believe that you are the sole person who knows best and know all.
The qualified electricians are indeed chumps and don’t know the first thing of their job and the US policy makers are equal cretins – and you alone stand out as Sir Galahad come to the rescue with immense sagacity in defence of the adversary so that peace is achieved at all cost, and to quote you till it escalates. But then, as I have been saying, don;t you think that it would be too late?
I do observed that you advocate an immense faith in brinkmanship and doing things at the last minute, procrastinating and prevaricating till finally forced to act.
May I ask is that not too nerve wracking?
Of course, you would claim, true to style, that you have nerves of steel and you will blink last.
But remember, it might have its side effects - you will be prone to ulcers!
Indeed those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and see a threat behind every grass blade collapse from exhaustion!Those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and those who see a threat behind every blade of grass are likely to collapse from exhaustion and over-exertion by the time a real threat presents itself. The world is a messy place. Anyone who tries to order it to their liking will both fail and fall: nobody could sustain the required commitments. Political realism requires that one choose one's battles and act when it matters, not every time some convoluted combination of assumptions says it might someday matter. Trouble is infinite. Resources are not.
I presume the US collapsed out of exhaustion trying to manage every drop of every oceans and seeing a threat behind every blade of grass against the USSR!
Let Christopher Hitchens, the English-born American author, journalist and literary critic answer that. He said:If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the nineteenth province of Iraq. Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority of those that intone the "peace movement.
Where exactly did I say any such thing? Specifically, please.
It is all over the forum.
Seek and Ye Shall Find!
Have a good day!
Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-22-2013 at 10:22 AM. Reason: fix quote
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks