Se Asia Getting Closer To Usa In Response To Chinese Rising Power

[WarpSpeed]

Vietnam seems to have already forgotten that tiny blip on their long history, the American War. They will never forget the threat and reality of CHINESE domination.

Yes, they even had joint military exercises in the last few days with the US...

[LaoPo]

LP, you are out of date. Things have changed. The Post has got the current reality correct since China has grown into a big clumsy BULLY. The American war is ancient history compared to current realpolitik. I know you are totally biased towards China but don't expect others to buy the Beijing line. Cheers.

Me, out of date?

I think I'm better informed than you might even dream of. I'm not China biased but I'm realistic of what I see, notice and experience, since more than 30 years of visiting, working and knowing China.

In the same period however I also built my businesses in the US so I think I have a little knowledge about both hemispheres; just a little; but to claim that China is aggressive is provoking language.

An old story in the US, bashing about China and you guys believe everything your US papers print and governments tell.

Vietnam's American war history ? .....America is only since 15 years on "terms" with Vietnam again but if you call 35 years since Saigon's fall ancient.....than how old are you ?

From the Dinosaur era?

LaoPo

[WarpSpeed]

Vietnam seems to have already forgotten that tiny blip on their long history, the American War. They will never forget the threat and reality of CHINESE domination.

That's because they won the former and would lose the latter.

ps thanks for you kind words. One tries.

I'm not going to go off topic and entertain that old debate about winning or losing in Vietnam, merely to correct your misinformation. There is a vast difference between losing a war and just withdrawing, South Vietnam lost the war to the North, the U.S. just simply withdrew which facilitated the South's loss, there was no capitulation nor surrender to be had by the U.S. and their withdrawal was due to nothing more then internal pressure in the States. The only war lost was the internal propaganda war which was more waged by those very sources for this report that are now being brought into question in an attempt to discredit them and others like them..

The score was North:

1,176,000 dead/missing;

600,000+ wounded

The U.S.

58,159 dead; 1,719 missing;

303,635 wounded

By any measure that is not a loss for the U.S it's a withdrawal pure and simple..

Edited August 10, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Vietnam seems to have already forgotten that tiny blip on their long history, the American War. They will never forget the threat and reality of CHINESE domination.

That's because they won the former and would lose the latter.

ps thanks for you kind words. One tries.

I'm not going to go off topic and entertain that old debate about winning or losing in Vietnam, merely to correct your misinformation. There is a vast difference between losing a war and just withdrawing, South Vietnam lost the war to the North, the U.S. just simply withdrew which facilitated the South's loss, there was no capitulation nor surrender to be had by the U.S. and their withdrawal was due to nothing more then internal pressure in the States. The only war lost was the internal propaganda war which was more waged by those very sources for this report that are now being brought into question in an attempt to discredit them and others like them..

The score was North:

1,176,000 dead/missing;

600,000+ wounded

The U.S.

58,159 dead; 1,719 missing;

303,635 wounded

By any measure that is not a loss for the U.S it's a withdrawal pure and simple..

I don't think listing the amount dead is an indication at to who won the war.

It's maybe just an indication of how much ordnance that was dropped from a great height by the USA.

[Jingthing]

The perception internationally, in the US, and in Vietnam, is that the US lost that war. They lost that war. Next ...

[thepanicandthevomit]

The SE Asian countries want the balance from the USA. They feel threatened. Especially Vietnam. Thank you for the voice of Beijing but sorry China is NOT a free country. We do know what modern China is capable of in the region and it is not pretty. TIBET. BURMA. I trust the FREE PRESS from the USA from a paper like the Washington Post about a million times more than any controlled Chinese media, and don't call me a right wing American either (Fox News sucks).

I have a voice of my own, nobody else's.

Vietnam feels threatened by China and seeks the lap of America for comfort....??....after what was done to her, first by the French and later Americans?

Yeah right.

You're talking suggestive if you write "...what modern China is capable of in the region and it is not pretty"

The US didn't act in Vietnam very pretty indeed but now they seek the lap of the US; after they threw out the Americans in 1975 ? Yeah, right, The American Dream, asking for forgiveness ?

Tibet History is a whole different story which goes back thousands of years and China didn't occupy nor invade Burma like the French and Americans did in Vietnam (plus the actions in Laos and Cambodia); speaking about: ....."it is not pretty"

If China would want to occupy Burma they could do so within the blink of an eye; yet they didn't, but you still accuse China of aggression; tell me Jingthing, where is the aggression? Be specific please if you write something like that.

Your kind of posting and the article by your beloved Washington Post is exactly what's provoking a non-existing situation since there isn't any aggression by China.

You guys invent it.

China has EVERYTHING to lose when they would start a war, nothing to gain. You underestimate the intelligence of China and overestimate that of the USA.

China is no policeman in Asia but the US is the world's policeman and the world doesn't like that (anymore)

You better get used to that idea.

LaoPo

The point being raised here, of course, is not that the US is wonderful and China woeful, but that china, in seeking to emulate the US, will gorge themselves on the world's natural resources, perhaps with even less consideration for the rest of the world than the west has shown thus far.

Can you reassure me that an undemocratic nation of only-children will be any less capricious?

[LaoPo]

The point being raised here, of course, is not that the US is wonderful and China woeful, but that china, in seeking to emulate the US, will gorge themselves on the world's natural resources, perhaps with even less consideration for the rest of the world than the west has shown thus far.

Can you reassure me that an undemocratic nation of only-children will be any less capricious?

Can anybody reassure anything in this world ? Can you ? So..why ask me?

But, I understand, it's a pure rhetorical question and leads nowhere; the same as you can't reassure that a democratic country (read; Government) can't be capricious

LaoPo

[Heng]

Vietnam seems to have already forgotten that tiny blip on their long history, the American War. They will never forget the threat and reality of CHINESE domination.

That's because they won the former and would lose the latter.

ps thanks for you kind words. One tries.

I'm not going to go off topic and entertain that old debate about winning or losing in Vietnam, merely to correct your misinformation. There is a vast difference between losing a war and just withdrawing, South Vietnam lost the war to the North, the U.S. just simply withdrew which facilitated the South's loss, there was no capitulation nor surrender to be had by the U.S. and their withdrawal was due to nothing more then internal pressure in the States. The only war lost was the internal propaganda war which was more waged by those very sources for this report that are now being brought into question in an attempt to discredit them and others like them..

The score was North:

1,176,000 dead/missing;

600,000+ wounded

The U.S.

58,159 dead; 1,719 missing;

303,635 wounded

By any measure that is not a loss for the U.S it's a withdrawal pure and simple..

LOL. I guess Napoleon and Hitler really didn't lose to Russia either then. They just withdrew.

[PhilHarries]

Odd that business reports coming out of the Shanghai Expo 2010 are highlighting China's lead in "green" technology. You won't meet too many global warming denialists in Beijing.

And is there anything left to rape after the previous rapacious century led by the US based corporations? .

Whoops! He must have forgotten about convenient history...

You two seem to be under some strange delusion that what is portrayed amongst the gliitering lights and shiny suited salespersons at an expo has any connect with any government policy.

And no, you won't find denialists of any kind in Bejing or Shanghai. They've all been herded up and shipped out to take up new challenges along distant frontiers.

[Ulysses G.]

Hitler really didn't lose to Russia either then. They just withdrew.

He lost when they invaded Germany.

[Heng]

Well no, because still fewer Germans died, as per Warp's thesis. That is, unless you want to whip out the 'as a % of population' deaths argument.

[Ulysses G.]

Well no, because still fewer Germans died, as per Warp's thesis. That is, unless you want to whip out the 'as a % of population' deaths argument.

When someone invades your country and takes it over, you LOST!

[electau]

Germany and Japan lost WW2 because they did not achieve their original objectives. France (Napoleon) lost for the same reason.

The US withdrew support for the south in the Vietnam War as they knew they could not win. The North Vietnam won their objective.

North and South Korea are still technically still at war with each other.

North Vietnam was supported by the then USSR, South Vietnam was supported by the US and its Allies. It was to become a "limited war" such as the Korean war.

A "proxy war" between the superpowers.

And the purpose of the concept of "limited war" was to prevent a WW3 situation.

China lost to the major imperial powers in the 19th century, and was humiliated by this. they are not going to let it happen again, and to this day that background forms a major part of their foreign policy.

　

[Heng]

Well no, because still fewer Germans died, as per Warp's thesis. That is, unless you want to whip out the 'as a % of population' deaths argument.

When someone invades your country and takes it over, you LOST!

No kidding. No different than when someone invades your country and they withdraw, then you won. Unless you're going for statistics/by points win that is.

[Ulysses G.]

The US withdrew support for the south in the Vietnam War as they knew they could not win.

Actually, it was because of the political situation at home. Being against the war became fashionable with young people who wanted to avoid any kind of military service - noble reasons or not - and the press did everything they could to turn public opinion against it.

It is difficult to fight a war that citizens do not support.

[Ulysses G.]

No different than when someone invades your country and they withdraw, then you won.

So the Chinese "Lost" in Korea?

[zzaa09]

The US withdrew support for the south in the Vietnam War as they knew they could not win.

Actually, it was because of the political situation at home. Being against the war became fashionable with young people who wanted to avoid any kind of military service - noble reasons or not - and the press did everything they could to turn public opinion against it.

It is difficult to fight a war that citizens do not support.

I really don't believe that the political and social pressure 'at home' had much of an impact on the eventual decision. Believing because it is repeated enough over and again is how history is socially engineered. The Yanks knew the jig was up years before the final 1975 pull out.....an attempted Asian occupation and land war is never to their favour. Simply, they got their butts whip. Out manouvered, out smarted strategically, and never had the support of the population {which you shouldn't when you're a foreign devil}. Military excuses and apologies don't come for the American....so naturally, they'll use a alternate tact to create rhymes and reasons.

[electau]

No the Chinese did not lose in Korea, they withdrew as neither the USSR or China wanted another WW.

And the US did not want to be involved directly with the USSR in the Vietman war because this would have happened if they decided to win.

With WW2 Great Britain and the Empire with the US had to win, there was no other option.

[Ulysses G.]

I really don't believe that the political and social pressure 'at home' had much of an impact on the eventual decision.

"Little impact". Well, that kind of negates anything else you have to say on the matter.

[Ulysses G.]

No the Chinese did not lose in Korea, they withdrew as neither the USSR or China wanted another WW.

And the US did not want to be involved directly with the USSR in the Vietman war because this would have happened if they decided to win.

With WW2 Great Britain and the Empire with the US had to win, there was no other option.

Agreed.

[AnnyLing]

Vietnam seems to have already forgotten that tiny blip on their long history, the American War. They will never forget the threat and reality of CHINESE domination.

The wet dreams some people have are amazing.

[Ulysses G.]

I lived in Vietnam and Jingthing is correct.

[Heng]

No different than when someone invades your country and they withdraw, then you won.

So the Chinese "Lost" in Korea?

Pretty clear that no one won that one.

[zzaa09]

I lived in Vietnam and Jingthing is correct.

I was born and raised there during the regional war years {50's through the 70's}. My Father was a intelligence analyst with the highest clearance. NSA employed via the State Department. Regularly commuting between Saigon, NKP, Vientiane, Phnom Penh, Udon, etc. The stories I could tell......

[Heng]

SE Asia has long since been colonized through diaspora, not amphibious landing craft. It doesn't really matter what flags are flown when the heads of state, industry, etc. are pretty much all Chinese in ancestry. Even China and Taiwan, despite all the saber rattling, when it comes down to it know that they are brothers. It's part of our programming. You're about as likely to see two branches of Goldman Sachs become true enemies.

[Ulysses G.]

I lived in Vietnam and Jingthing is correct.

I was born and raised there during the regional war years {50's through the 70's}. My Father was a intelligence analyst with the highest clearance. NSA employed via the State Department. Regularly commuting between Saigon, NKP, Vientiane, Phnom Penh, Udon, etc. The stories I could tell......

That would certainly explain why you have no knowledge of what was happening in the U.S.

[Chunky1]

For Communists, they sure seem to really like McDonalds, Starbucks and BMW.

China 2010 is at the point where Japan was in 1931 and Germany in 1937.

It wishes to be a world power. It has first strike capadbility. They are Communist. They do not believe in democracy as practiced in the West. They support North Korea, they want the US out S Korea. They want resources ie minerals and food and they will stop at nothing to get it.

China does not have to concern itself with such matters as "human rights" to a Communist the end justifies the means.

Want some schools, hospitals, roads and electricity? China will supply the funds all they will ask for is your mineral and food resources and they will control your goverment indirectly, money will buy influence anywhere and that includes the West.

And yes they do seem to have the best economic system but how long will it last?

Afganistan may form part of a long term (in the future) strategic plan for the West.

One only has to look at the investments in Australia by China.

[wintermute]

I lived in Vietnam and Jingthing is correct.

I don't think you understand the Vietnamese too well. This is a marriage of convenience because Vietnam sees economic and military technology transfer opportunities here. They can play the role of "ally" but that's just real politik. They have way more to gain by playing both sides (China and the U.S.) and I bet that's what they will do in the long run. They are playing a similar long term game that India has come to master in the past 50 years. They will flip flop and collect the best possible benefits from both sides.

Look at the export/import economics sometime. Vietnam actually has a substantial business relationship with China.

If people expect them to be some kind of stalwart U.S. ally willing to go in the trenches in case of an actual conflict you'd be mistaken. They are pragmatic and very nationalistic people..way more so than Thais or other SE asians.

[LaoPo]

For Communists, they sure seem to really like McDonalds, Starbucks and BMW.

Less than 6% of the population is member of the CPC but 94% is not and likes it too.

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

I lived in Vietnam and Jingthing is correct.

I don't think you understand the Vietnamese too well.

Maybe because you do not want to. They do not bear any big grudge against the U.S., but are still concerned about China because it is right on their border. No one said anything about them wanting to be a U.S. puppet or anything close to that.