Pompeo urges more assertive approach to 'Frankenstein' China

[melvinmelvin]

On 7/25/2020 at 4:28 AM, Damual Travesty said:

"Armed conflict is pure nourishment for US" may I remind you that China is threatening its neighbours in the South China sea, making territorial claims that threaten the livelihoods of  these nations, and is threatening free flow of global trade in the region, has built military installations in disputed territory. A concerted response is warranted. If war comes that will be China's choice.

yes, nourishment

How many hours since the Japanese bombing in P H has USA not been involved

in armed conflict somewhere on the planet? That is what you do. And destabilising governement you don't fancy,

all over America Latin

 

anyway you are not alone, Russia and China are also pretty bad and have been for many years

this is how they secure dominance; violence - brutality - threats - undermining of legal governments

 

[JensenZ]

Native scholar says Communist China has 'met its match' with Trump admin following consulate closure.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scholar-communist-china-met-match-with-the-trump-admin-consulate-closure

[Maestro]

Removed two off-topic posts and a troll post (untelligible)

[3NUMBAS]

yes needs to be isolated from the west like north korea as its a pariah state always looking for trouble like Klingons

[Surelynot]

Currently one of the, If not the, most dangerous men in the world......religious fruit cake.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about the Holocaust and WW2 have been removed. 

[Damual Travesty]

23 hours ago, Morch said:

It would be even better if these things were argued from a better position with regard to the USA's own issues.

Interesting. Perhaps you can give me an example of this argument?

[Damual Travesty]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes, nourishment

How many hours since the Japanese bombing in P H has USA not been involved

in armed conflict somewhere on the planet? That is what you do. And destabilising governement you don't fancy,

all over America Latin

 

anyway you are not alone, Russia and China are also pretty bad and have been for many years

this is how they secure dominance; violence - brutality - threats - undermining of legal governments

 

We are talking about a current Chinese threat. While I appreciate your negative view of the United States, is there a particular argument you are making regarding a Chinese threat which is quite real and unfolding as we speak? Or are you making a claim that there is no Chinese threat? Either of those arguments are not reliant of your take on history. We are talking about what is happening right now.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Interesting. Perhaps you can give me an example of this argument?

 

The USA is currently headed by a controversial (putting it very mildly) President. Some of the many issues related to his character, actions and policies directly effect the USA's position when it comes to forging an effective alliance and cooperation with other countries to counter the PRC. As this was discussed on many topics, seems rather pointless rehashing each and every point. 

 

The ongoing protests/riots in the USA, and the recent federal government response to them could be seen as either an indication of weakness, and/or a more authoritarian approach to domestic issues. Given that harping on democracy and such are a hallmark of the rhetoric direct at the PRC, current perception of the situation in the USA harm this narrative.

 

The USA's failures to acknowledge and address the Corona/Covid-19 crisis are on show, internationally. If a country can't get a handle on domestic issues, why expect it to deal efficiently with a multi-faceted conflict with a rival (or emerging, whatever) superpower?

 

All of the above do not bolster the USA's international position, clout and support. Again, putting it mildly. Most are discussed on multiple parallel topics, and specific in-depth analysis would probably be off-topic with regard to the OP.  

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

We are talking about a current Chinese threat. While I appreciate your negative view of the United States, is there a particular argument you are making regarding a Chinese threat which is quite real and unfolding as we speak? Or are you making a claim that there is no Chinese threat? Either of those arguments are not reliant of your take on history. We are talking about what is happening right now.

 

agree with that;

 

the Chinese actions are current

the Chinese actions represent a threat

the Chinese actions are indeed real

 

don't think you can do much about it in the short time

 

concerted action with Pompeo or his likes on Penn Ave is not attractive to many countries

US credibility has gone, alas

US is not trustworthy, alas

reasonably run and managed sovereign states prefer to handle serious foreign policy issues

                 outside of tweeter and facebook

Edited July 26, 2020 by melvinmelvin
typo

[JensenZ]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The USA is currently headed by a controversial (putting it very mildly) President. Some of the many issues related to his character, actions and policies directly effect the USA's position when it comes to forging an effective alliance and cooperation with other countries to counter the PRC. As this was discussed on many topics, seems rather pointless rehashing each and every point. 

 

The ongoing protests/riots in the USA, and the recent federal government response to them could be seen as either an indication of weakness, and/or a more authoritarian approach to domestic issues. Given that harping on democracy and such are a hallmark of the rhetoric direct at the PRC, current perception of the situation in the USA harm this narrative.

 

The USA's failures to acknowledge and address the Corona/Covid-19 crisis are on show, internationally. If a country can't get a handle on domestic issues, why expect it to deal efficiently with a multi-faceted conflict with a rival (or emerging, whatever) superpower?

 

All of the above do not bolster the USA's international position, clout and support. Again, putting it mildly. Most are discussed on multiple parallel topics, and specific in-depth analysis would probably be off-topic with regard to the OP.  

The USA fails to acknowledge and address the covid-19 crisis? That's a ridiculous assertion considering they test far more than any other country, at an average of 176/100k, or over 400,000 per week. I would say that classifies as acknowledging and addressing the crisis.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison

 

Hardly any country has a handle on the crisis with 2nd waves striking all over the world... but of course in the US it's all Trump's fault? I suppose it makes people feel comfortable, having someone to blame. You will have no idea how the badly the covid-19 pandemic is affecting China as they keep a tight lock on information.

 

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, JensenZ said:

The USA fails to acknowledge and address the covid-19 crisis? That's a ridiculous assertion considering they test far more than any other country, at an average of 176/100k, or over 400,000 per week. I would say that classifies as acknowledging and addressing the crisis.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison

 

Hardly any country has a handle on the crisis with 2nd waves striking all over the world... but of course in the US it's all Trump's fault? I suppose it makes people feel comfortable, having someone to blame. You will have no idea how the badly the covid-19 pandemic is affecting China as they keep a tight lock on information.

 

agree that US addresses the corona virus and its side effects, but in my view counting tests is hardly interesting

tests as such doesn't save Americans from passing away

 

in July there are close to 1000 deaths per day in the US, alarming if you ask me, (if you don't ask - still alarming)

 

rather than counting tests one should ask; is the way the virus is addressed in the US adequate?

(assuming that the goal is to reduce the # deaths)

 

[Damual Travesty]

19 hours ago, RobFord said:

All that “who’s side would you rather be on” changed with Trump. I will never give the benefit of doubt again.

What does this mean? Benefit of the doubt regarding what?

[Morch]

7 hours ago, JensenZ said:

The USA fails to acknowledge and address the covid-19 crisis? That's a ridiculous assertion considering they test far more than any other country, at an average of 176/100k, or over 400,000 per week. I would say that classifies as acknowledging and addressing the crisis.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/international-comparison

 

Hardly any country has a handle on the crisis with 2nd waves striking all over the world... but of course in the US it's all Trump's fault? I suppose it makes people feel comfortable, having someone to blame. You will have no idea how the badly the covid-19 pandemic is affecting China as they keep a tight lock on information.

 

 

The USA response was slow, confused and sometimes contradictory. Not much of a display when it comes to leadership and competence. Overall, IMO, not the best advertisement for heading an anti-PRC drive.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Morch

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The USA response was slow, confused and sometimes contradictory. Not much of a display when it comes to leadership and competence. Overall, IMO, not the best advertisement for heading an anti-PRC drive.

 

 

but on the other hand;

 

US and its leadership have demonstrated rapid and repeated actions related

to informing the rest of the world of the lack of competence in these matters in WHO

as well as the level of corruption in the WHO leadership

 

you must give that to US

 

want the latest updates re handling world wide virus driven illnesses?

just listen in on the PennAve tweeter channel

 

this is the kind of public actions that will ensure countries lining up for concerted 

actions with US re dealing with difficut and sensitive foreign policy issues

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

but on the other hand;

 

US and its leadership have demonstrated rapid and repeated actions related

to informing the rest of the world of the lack of competence in these matters in WHO

as well as the level of corruption in the WHO leadership

 

you must give that to US

 

want the latest updates re handling world wide virus driven illnesses?

just listen in on the PennAve tweeter channel

 

this is the kind of public actions that will ensure countries lining up for concerted 

actions with US re dealing with difficut and sensitive foreign policy issues

 

 

I don't know that the USA claims regarding WHO generated reactions such as suggested above. It could also be seen as yet another ploy to deflect attention from failures, or as yet another issue used as fodder for the partisan divide. How much traction did it actually get, internationally? And how does this traction interpreted with regard to the USA's international standing?

[Damual Travesty]

19 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

agree with that;

 

the Chinese actions are current

the Chinese actions represent a threat

the Chinese actions are indeed real

 

don't think you can do much about it in the short time

 

concerted action with Pompeo or his likes on Penn Ave is not attractive to many countries

US credibility has gone, alas

US is not trustworthy, alas

reasonably run and managed sovereign states prefer to handle serious foreign policy issues

                 outside of tweeter and facebook

With respect to your position, much being made here regarding US credibility, I think that the situation is this. China is threatening Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, (and other nations with a stake in South China sea, Japan, and attempting to economically bully Australia with threats.  So let me just stop right there.

 

Military alliances are not about friendship. They are about countries making choices that effect their safety and security. For some Countries, the USA is still the best bet for that. Considering that it is ONLY the Trump administration that has taken a decidedly confrontational tactic with China, and not the previous administrations, it is rather obvious where the USA is heading at least under the current President.

 

The choice for the countries affected here is to either attempt some sort of neutrality (hard to do in the face of a bully), or fall in league with China, or seek alliance with the United States. All this business about domestic disturbance in the USA - as much as it is international news, I don't think comes into the equation if you are one of the countries seeing the very real - not imagined - threat coming from China.

 

Do you really think that a country in such a position makes a decision to move away from an American President that is showing resolve that was lacking for over 8 years and more, but especially the 8 years of the Obama administration that spent it's time lecturing the the Philippines?

 

If Vietnam for example, were to have closer military ties to the USA it has nothing to do with Friendship and everything to do with mutual concerns about regional safety. They don't care that people do not like the American President because they find him abrasive. I think they are far above such nonsense in their thinking.  An incoming Joe Biden administration, a man whose son took a diamond ring from Chinese business concerns as well as millions - and the weakness of the last Democrat administration on China, extreme weakness, embarrassingly so, is I am sure thought about with far more fear then is doing business with Donald J Trump. Countries understand that American strength benefits them, and American weakness, on the domestic front, is likely to become worse under a future Democrat administration. They have given gentle and kind words to domestic terrorists, supported such domestic terror organizations as BLM and ANTIFA, and people who make decisions understand that.  A strong United States, that puts down such violence, is one that can reach with strength into their region at a time when it is needed.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that the USA claims regarding WHO generated reactions such as suggested above. It could also be seen as yet another ploy to deflect attention from failures, or as yet another issue used as fodder for the partisan divide. How much traction did it actually get, internationally? And how does this traction interpreted with regard to the USA's international standing?

well,

Trump pretty much blamed the WHO for the volume and severeness of the corona related problems in the US,

kinda childish and not what you would expect from POTUS, no score on that one

 

Many, and now I mean Many, countries reacted very negatively to Trump/US stopping payment of dues to WHO.

The US and in particular Trump got a lot of flak on the political level for that.

In my view that flak was somewhat unfair. In the UN system it is not uncommon that UN member states react by

reducing payment/financial support when they become sufficiently unhappy with what is happening in a UN agency

or if  they feel sufficiently hurt when they are unlucky with their candidates in elections.

Many bad losers, also in Europe. Several countries in Europe have done similar to what Trump did.

US scored lower than low on that one, not deserved in my view.

 

Pulling out of WHO altogether? Lower than low score.

And what is the point really, even for a mega big country like US?

WHO being clever or not clever, it is the only tool available with global outreach re health reated issues.

 

Concerted action? On dead serious issues? Of course there is a lot of reluctance around.

You never know what is coming. Loose cannons ain't fun to work with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

With respect to your position, much being made here regarding US credibility, I think that the situation is this. China is threatening Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, (and other nations with a stake in South China sea, Japan, and attempting to economically bully Australia with threats.  So let me just stop right there.

 

Military alliances are not about friendship. They are about countries making choices that effect their safety and security. For some Countries, the USA is still the best bet for that. Considering that it is ONLY the Trump administration that has taken a decidedly confrontational tactic with China, and not the previous administrations, it is rather obvious where the USA is heading at least under the current President.

 

The choice for the countries affected here is to either attempt some sort of neutrality (hard to do in the face of a bully), or fall in league with China, or seek alliance with the United States. All this business about domestic disturbance in the USA - as much as it is international news, I don't think comes into the equation if you are one of the countries seeing the very real - not imagined - threat coming from China.

 

Do you really think that a country in such a position makes a decision to move away from an American President that is showing resolve that was lacking for over 8 years and more, but especially the 8 years of the Obama administration that spent it's time lecturing the the Philippines?

 

If Vietnam for example, were to have closer military ties to the USA it has nothing to do with Friendship and everything to do with mutual concerns about regional safety. They don't care that people do not like the American President because they find him abrasive. I think they are far above such nonsense in their thinking.  An incoming Joe Biden administration, a man whose son took a diamond ring from Chinese business concerns as well as millions - and the weakness of the last Democrat administration on China, extreme weakness, embarrassingly so, is I am sure thought about with far more fear then is doing business with Donald J Trump. Countries understand that American strength benefits them, and American weakness, on the domestic front, is likely to become worse under a future Democrat administration. They have given gentle and kind words to domestic terrorists, supported such domestic terror organizations as BLM and ANTIFA, and people who make decisions understand that.  A strong United States, that puts down such violence, is one that can reach with strength into their region at a time when it is needed.

 

And yet, there is no such international, or even regional, alliance united and dedicated to countering the PRC, under USA leadership. Countries threatened by the PRC would probably be interested in some sort of military backup, sure. That said, making such moves is bound to anger the PRC further. It might not be worth the risk if the supposed backup fails to deliver, is seen as inconsistent or raises too many demands and issues.

 

So while you may see Trump as an ideal (or even acceptable) candidate for being "it", doubtful all involved nations all share your point of view.

 

The problem with Trump's "resolve" is that it could be out the window in a couple of weeks time, owing to change of focus, political necessities, this or that whim etc. That's pretty much how most of his foreign "policy" looks like. A whole lot of hot air, less action, and numerous flip flops.

 

It's not about friendship? Fair enough. But there's got to be trust that the USA will deliver. I do not think Trump generates this sort of trust outside of his supporter base.

 

Are you seriously going on about Biden Junior? Where do you think Trump's daughter makes the stuff she sells? Or maybe you missed out on her and hubby involved in some dodgy visa schemes down there? As for the rest of your anti-Dem rant, mostly nonsense and made up stuff. Kinda funny when considering the complaints about focusing on Trump rather than the PRC. Apparently it's alright if dissing the opposition.

 

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

With respect to your position, much being made here regarding US credibility, I think that the situation is this. China is threatening Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, (and other nations with a stake in South China sea, Japan, and attempting to economically bully Australia with threats.  So let me just stop right there.

 

Military alliances are not about friendship. They are about countries making choices that effect their safety and security. For some Countries, the USA is still the best bet for that. Considering that it is ONLY the Trump administration that has taken a decidedly confrontational tactic with China, and not the previous administrations, it is rather obvious where the USA is heading at least under the current President.

 

The choice for the countries affected here is to either attempt some sort of neutrality (hard to do in the face of a bully), or fall in league with China, or seek alliance with the United States. All this business about domestic disturbance in the USA - as much as it is international news, I don't think comes into the equation if you are one of the countries seeing the very real - not imagined - threat coming from China.

 

Do you really think that a country in such a position makes a decision to move away from an American President that is showing resolve that was lacking for over 8 years and more, but especially the 8 years of the Obama administration that spent it's time lecturing the the Philippines?

 

If Vietnam for example, were to have closer military ties to the USA it has nothing to do with Friendship and everything to do with mutual concerns about regional safety. They don't care that people do not like the American President because they find him abrasive. I think they are far above such nonsense in their thinking.  An incoming Joe Biden administration, a man whose son took a diamond ring from Chinese business concerns as well as millions - and the weakness of the last Democrat administration on China, extreme weakness, embarrassingly so, is I am sure thought about with far more fear then is doing business with Donald J Trump. Countries understand that American strength benefits them, and American weakness, on the domestic front, is likely to become worse under a future Democrat administration. They have given gentle and kind words to domestic terrorists, supported such domestic terror organizations as BLM and ANTIFA, and people who make decisions understand that.  A strong United States, that puts down such violence, is one that can reach with strength into their region at a time when it is needed.

 

To your last paragraph:

Like POTUS or not like POTUS is probably not part of it, I can agree to that.

However, important ingredients is confidence and trust, in my view - these are lacking in your stew

(what Biden and his family do with rings ain't part of the equation)

 

To your first paragraph;

Yes, some will.

Why?

There is no resolve to spot. Pursuing issues with consistency is not a White House strength these days.

The focus moves and moves.

What will happen if the White House cook on duty screws up one morning and serve a hard boiled egg rather than

a soft boiled egg? POTUS gets angry and maybe changes focus from SEA to Greenland and the Arctic as being

much more strategically important to US (which it is).

You never know, foreign policy run whim by whim is not inviting.

Its this bit about trust and confidence again - these terms are not only food for 4th of July speeches

they are required ingredients for forming large scale undertakings.

Your list;

Taiwan turning to US? Hardly.   Australia turning to US to stop the bullying? Doubt it.

Philippines turning to US. Anybody's guess - the chieftain in Philippines is also a loose cannon.

Japan? Yes, maybe so.

Vietnam? Dunno. Would be interesting if it took place. A communist country seeking protection from US

in staggering another communist country? Would they opt to facilitate such a role for the US on

the global scene?

 

Thank you for your attention, its Belhaven and nip time.

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And yet, there is no such international, or even regional, alliance united and dedicated to countering the PRC, under USA leadership. Countries threatened by the PRC would probably be interested in some sort of military backup, sure. That said, making such moves is bound to anger the PRC further. It might not be worth the risk if the supposed backup fails to deliver, is seen as inconsistent or raises too many demands and issues.

 

So while you may see Trump as an ideal (or even acceptable) candidate for being "it", doubtful all involved nations all share your point of view.

 

The problem with Trump's "resolve" is that it could be out the window in a couple of weeks time, owing to change of focus, political necessities, this or that whim etc. That's pretty much how most of his foreign "policy" looks like. A whole lot of hot air, less action, and numerous flip flops.

 

It's not about friendship? Fair enough. But there's got to be trust that the USA will deliver. I do not think Trump generates this sort of trust outside of his supporter base.

 

Are you seriously going on about Biden Junior? Where do you think Trump's daughter makes the stuff she sells? Or maybe you missed out on her and hubby involved in some dodgy visa schemes down there? As for the rest of your anti-Dem rant, mostly nonsense and made up stuff. Kinda funny when considering the complaints about focusing on Trump rather than the PRC. Apparently it's alright if dissing the opposition.

 

 

Would just like to add a comment.

xxxx Travesty appear as a typical US war monger and WDC hawk to me.

It is not uncommon, when you listen in on BKK barstool talk, to hear views like

I have more helicopters than you do,

I have more destroyers than you do,

I have more bombers than you do. Hence you should jump to concerted action/alliance with me.

 

Trust - confidence - reliability are not part of the considerations.

However, these elements are vital.

 

POTUS scared the excrements out of ministers of foreign affairs and heads of states at a NATO meeting

not so long after he took over on Penn Ave. In usual Trump style he hadn't bothered to take in and understand

the political agreements in place re financing NATO. He was unhappy with the difference between US payments and the contributions of others (fully understandable), but members were within politically agreed payment schemes.

Being unhappy he threatened to discontinue US involvment in NATO.

Wanna go to bed with him before taking on China?

 

 

 

[Damual Travesty]

7 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

Vietnam? Dunno. Would be interesting if it took place. A communist country seeking protection from US

Let's make this a bit more nuanced rather then stating "A communist country seeking protection" I think we can drill this down so that it's not quite as black and white as that. Seeking protection? How about putting it this way: (all within the last 30 days), as an aside when the USA and USSR were in relationship during world war II I don't think the Soviets were seeking "Protection".

https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/us-vietnam-ties-have-never-been-better/

https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/will-we-see-a-us-vietnam-strategic-partnership/

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-us-relations-25-year-testament-to-realpolitik-success-4128684.html

https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/us-vietnam-rip-china-for-military-drills-in-disputed-waters/

 

Additionally, on a side note regarding military alliances with USA in the last week the USA conducted Naval exercises in the South China sea with Australia and Japan.

[ballpoint]

21 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

US and its leadership have demonstrated rapid and repeated actions related

to informing the rest of the world of the lack of competence in these matters in WHO

Really?  All I'm seeing is the US and its leadership demonstrating rapid and repeated actions related to informing the rest of the world of their own lack of competence in these matters.

[metisdead]

A post with a link to an unapproved YouTube source has been removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube  etc.) should always be shown.

 

A post commenting on moderation policy has now been removed:

 

10) Do not comment on moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. This also includes posting an emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. 

 

You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy.

Edited July 28, 2020 by metisdead

[Damual Travesty]

On 7/27/2020 at 8:51 AM, Morch said:

 

The USA response was slow, confused and sometimes contradictory. Not much of a display when it comes to leadership and competence. Overall, IMO, not the best advertisement for heading an anti-PRC drive.

 

 

Again, people here get this all wrong. Any nation that is feeling threatened by China is more then welcome to open discussions with the United States to perhaps work together to deal with a very pressing issue that relates to such important matters as defence of territory, of territorial resource rights, and of freedom of navigation  for trade in international waters.

 

Those are mighty big issues for nations to have concern about. Such matters are not driven by a sales campaign to like the United States. Those nations of the region who have such concerns know what's up. They are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China. The reason for that is they are watching U.S. actions in the region. A big difference from talking about a "pivot to asia" that came out of the mouth of the previous administration.

 

The U.S. Fleet on full patrol, the ability to work with that fleet for the mutual concerns of freedom of navigation, and protection of shipping. That is what this is about.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Damual Travesty
sp

[JensenZ]

On 7/26/2020 at 8:34 PM, Surelynot said:

Currently one of the, If not the, most dangerous men in the world......religious fruit cake.

Wow, really? Just when I was thinking what a great choice for Secretary of State this guy is. Could you be more specific - why exactly is he dangerous? Is it because he stands up the CCP, something Tillerson and Obama didn't have the balls to do. Until Pompeo came onto the scene, no one said a word about the Chinese Island building and military fortification.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Again, people here get this all wrong. Any nation that is feeling threatened by China is more then welcome to open discussions with the United States to perhaps work together to deal with a very pressing issue that relates to such important matters as defence of territory, of territorial resource rights, and of freedom of navigation  for trade in international waters.

 

Those are mighty big issues for nations to have concern about. Such matters are not driven by a sales campaign to like the United States. Those nations of the region who have such concerns know what's up. They are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China. The reason for that is they are watching U.S. actions in the region. A big difference from talking about a "pivot to asia" that came out of the mouth of the previous administration.

 

The U.S. Fleet on full patrol, the ability to work with that fleet for the mutual concerns of freedom of navigation, and protection of shipping. That is what this is about.

 

what is it that people here get all wrong? I don't understand

 

That is what this is about?

maybe so, but those sovereign states that do not want to work with the US military are plentiful

 

[Morch]

20 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

Again, people here get this all wrong. Any nation that is feeling threatened by China is more then welcome to open discussions with the United States to perhaps work together to deal with a very pressing issue that relates to such important matters as defence of territory, of territorial resource rights, and of freedom of navigation  for trade in international waters.

 

Those are mighty big issues for nations to have concern about. Such matters are not driven by a sales campaign to like the United States. Those nations of the region who have such concerns know what's up. They are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China. The reason for that is they are watching U.S. actions in the region. A big difference from talking about a "pivot to asia" that came out of the mouth of the previous administration.

 

The U.S. Fleet on full patrol, the ability to work with that fleet for the mutual concerns of freedom of navigation, and protection of shipping. That is what this is about.

 

You can claim people here get this all wrong, but it still doesn't go toward addressing points made.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, your opinions as to what other countries are certain of, how they perceive Trump, or how they assess the PRC's threat and ways to address it are neither set in stone nor are they necessarily supported by facts.

 

It would be hard to claim that "they are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China". Not when Trump already made several flip flops during his term, not when his foreign policy is filled with other examples of such, and not when it is rather obvious that his main focus is on Trump, rather than anything else.

 

Aligning with the USA is one thing, doing so when the USA leadership is unpredictable and inconsistent is another.

[Damual Travesty]

17 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

maybe so, but those sovereign states that do not want to work with the US military are plentiful

Good - as they should be. This is really only something that should interest any Nation in Asia that would feel the need for closer military ties with the United States. Those that have no such interests I guess that this would not be of any interest. Those nations who are content to be where they are - in terms of their relationships should stay right where they are. As I said earlier (twice), not a time for ambiguity. A Nation either feels threatened by China or it does not. There is no middle ground on that point. If they do feel threatened, the level of cooperation with US forces in the region I suppose would depend on how they are gauging the threat, as measured against their own strength. Is China threatening? Decide for yourself. If you are Laos or Cambodia with economies that essentially make them vassal states of China - well - I would not expect them to seek a military alliance with the USA now would I. All nations in the region affected could always seek appeasement with China - give away their sovereignty over territorial waters, fishing rights, etc.

[Damual Travesty]

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can claim people here get this all wrong, but it still doesn't go toward addressing points made.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, your opinions as to what other countries are certain of, how they perceive Trump, or how they assess the PRC's threat and ways to address it are neither set in stone nor are they necessarily supported by facts.

 

It would be hard to claim that "they are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China". Not when Trump already made several flip flops during his term, not when his foreign policy is filled with other examples of such, and not when it is rather obvious that his main focus is on Trump, rather than anything else.

 

Aligning with the USA is one thing, doing so when the USA leadership is unpredictable and inconsistent is another.

You put a lot of credence into the idea that Donald Trump has made several flip flops. You are clearly not understanding US policy - now, or how it was during the Obama years. The United States has a pretty clear policy on China at the moment - thank you very much. That of course all changes should Trump lose the election.