So, then, is the general concensus now that there is no concensus?

 

My main point was taken out because I mentioned seating so there is little more that I can say.

So..we are supposed to be at war with Eastasia but owing to some political squabbles or two, remain somewhat fixated on Eurasia?

25 minutes ago, rabas said:

Yes, that's the way it usually works. More advanced countries give more money and equipment and less advanced countries contribute more personnel, e.g. Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc., The US contributes by far the largest budget (3X anyone else). China contribute some of both.

 

Certainly China does not contribute the largest number of personnel as claimed by Eric Low.

 

Yes. You're right about that. I was puzzled when I went to the page he linked to since I couldn't find any support for that assertion.

On the other hand, I did a cursory search at the contributions of the major advanced economies and the USA was the only nation that didn't contribute any troops to the UN. Although Japan beat the USA by just 4.

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes. You're right about that. I was puzzled when I went to the page he linked to since I couldn't find any support for that assertion.

On the other hand, I did a cursory search at the contributions of the major advanced economies and the USA was the only nation that didn't contribute any troops to the UN. Although Japan beat the USA by just 4.

I have to admit that that extract was a paragraph in the article and I didn’t do any fact check. I therefore stand to be corrected. However my main point was to reply to a post that said China has no allies and the attached article brought out how China engaged the world in both economic and politics. Thanks to those who took the effort to correct me. 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

However my main point was to reply to a post that said China has no allies and the attached article brought out how China engaged the world in both economic and politics.

Yes, China still has to buy its friends, just like the big dawgs it wants to run with.

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, China still has to buy its friends, just like the big dawgs it wants to run with.

Sometimes alliances are formed by other reasons besides monetary leverages. Take for instance, South Korea recently signed a security agreement with China after Trump demanded hefty increase in payment for their troops which angered SK. This alliance seem to be for reasons of offsetting power imbalances and fend off possible threats. 

On 11/23/2019 at 2:21 AM, bristolboy said:

You don't like that one? How about this?

China blocking Malaysian and Vietnamese oil and gas vessels shows greater willingness to intimidate, says think tank

• Actions at Vanguard Bank in disputed Spratly Islands ‘raises collision risk’
• Think tank cites data showing China has harassed those countries’ ships for at least six weeks

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3018951/china-blocking-malaysian-and-vietnamese-oil-and-gas-vessels

Ah the Americans stirring trouble again without being anywhere near it. I liked this bit best:

 

'China, Vietnam and Malaysia have all played down the incident, but the initiative said China had been harassing the two nations’ oil and gas exploration ships for at least six weeks, again citing ship tracking data.'

 

Wasn't it the Centre for Strategic & International Studies the drew gun emplacements and aircraft on a satellite picture of one of the islands and released it as a true aerial photograph? If I remember correctly, the Guardian fell for it and published it. So yes, it's more recent but it doesn't actually say anything does it, except what America want you to believe? This is how it works.

Some off topic posts and the off topic replies have been removed.