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

[Heng]

The status quo will continue to be like the crackdowns on infringements on intellectual property here. We'll continue to conduct joint raids, have joint seminars, and prosecute bus loads of fodder fall guys, etc. because we're "allies" and all... but we'll continue to do business as usual and sell whatever the f we want.

Similar to Taiwan/China/US relations. Oh yeah, we're allies and all, let's keep on with these joint military exercises, but nevermind the 100,000+ Taiwanese factories on the mainland that have operated in 3 shifts for the past 20+ years producing goods that will continue to bury your public in debt.

[Lancelot]

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.

Countries have no permanent friends. They do however have permanent issues and tend to act in their own best interests...

[Jingthing]

Countries have no permanent friends. They do however have permanent issues and tend to act in their own best interests...

Of course, certainly, the rational foreign policy of all countries is always to act in their own self interest. Exceptions may come about when a country is ruled by the insane, such as in North Korea, and somewhat the USA under Bush. This amplifies the problem of China. China has a huge amount of new power and they are clumsily testing out ways of using that power. Being the monster now in this regard, small actions from them in any arena ripple throughout the world. The USA has had the same effect in recent history, but USA power is diminishing and China's power is rising. So the issue here is what are countries to do, especially vulnerable neighbors of China, to protect themselves from the exigencies of this new situation, a very powerful China.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[PhilHarries]

Countries have no permanent friends. They do however have permanent issues and tend to act in their own best interests...

And in the case of "Democratic" countries like Thailand those best interests change every time they elect a new government or the old one is "persuaded" to step aside.

That's where China has an advantage, the government can make a long range plan knowing that opponents of it will be re-educated as to the errors of their ways.

There's a lot to be said for a one party state. In a democracy every five years or so millions of dollars are spent on elections where we get to vote for who we want to run the country. But no matter what, the government always win and we end up whinging about the bluddy government.

As to Thailand's part in all this, I think they'll do as they're told.

[Lancelot]

Countries have no permanent friends. They do however have permanent issues and tend to act in their own best interests...

That's where China has an advantage, the government can make a long range plan knowing that opponents of it will be re-educated as to the errors of their ways.

There's a lot to be said for a one party state... But no matter what, the government always win and we end up whinging about the bluddy government.

As to Thailand's part in all this, I think they'll do as they're told.

Interesting post.

I would agree that one party governments do have an inherient advantage in that they can implement the official plan with little interference from the opposion. Those foolish enough to oppose the government will be summarily detained and quickly re-educated in the joys of one party rule

About whinging against the government, despite what we say, we mostly love big government. Disagree? OK, just run for public office in most western "nanny" states and advocate a balanced budget funded by spending (benefit) cuts. I doubt you will enjoy re-election.

The Thais are pretty adept at survivial skills. Is it doing what they are told or simple prudence?

[thepanicandthevomit]

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

That is a very poor response. Chastise the US for past mistakes all you like but if you do so, you must offer something in return. What evidence do you have that China will be better custodians of the world than the Americans have been? If you have none, better the devil you know.

[zzaa09]

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

This vacant understanding can easily be applied to Asia at large. The Occidental mindset and and continuous lack of comprehension as to their understanding towards Asia is a foregone conclusion. It is what is it. It's even more mused to witness those whom have convinced themselves that they're knowledgeable and connected to patterns of insight as applied towards Asia.....quite silly and foolish in retrospect.

[wintermute]

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.

I didn't say they hold a grudge but a SE Asian nation as crafty as Vietnam doesn't think of things in those terms. The relationship is tributary as it has always been in SE Asia, Vietnam views the U.S. as a big rich patron who can offer up a better position in the global world order. They will "play" along just like they did when the U.S. was involved in the quagmire in Vietnam and China was their big sponsor for independence back in the day. They are playing cold war politics in the 21st century but with a new twist.

Like I said.. it's a marriage of convenience that only lasts as far as the cash flow continues to flow inward. Just because they are playing it up as the new best buddy of the west it doesn't mean that's what it is.

Don't forget the guys who run Vietnam now are old hands at this sort of diplomacy.

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe so, but it still has nothing to do with my statement that you are supposedly replying to.

[PhilHarries]

For those who are trumpeting China's green credentials.

China's deadly landslide 'not an accident'

The devastating mudslide in north-west China that has killed more than 1,000 people this week was not a 'natural' disaster but the forseeable consequence of China's cavalier attitude to the local environment, experts have said.

A 2006 report by Lanzhou University warned of the dangers presented by the destruction of the forests around Zhouqu for mining and agriculture, causing soil erosion and destabilising hillsides.

"The hills have become highly unstable and easily subject to natural disaster of landslides and mudslides," the report said. "The situation is the result of deforestation, exploitative mining activities, construction of hydroelectric power plants and other development activities."

Zhouqu, once known as the "Shangri La" of Gansu Province, has suffered more than ten major landslides since 1823, but experts said the risk had been increased hugely by the felling of more than 126,000 hectares of forest between 1952 and 1990.

In more recent years, the construction of a highway and more than 40 hydroelectric power dams in the sharp-sided valleys has further destabilised the geology, according to Fan Xiao, a leading Chinese geologist based in Sichuan.

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7938784/Chinas-deadly-landslide-not-an-accident.html

[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..

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

Yeah were there surrenders signed?? And who's country were they fighting for? Pretty poorly thought out comparison... In any comparison it's the end numbers that justify the winner and loser or a signed surrender by a given combatant if no end is determined.. Did the U.S. sign any such document? Or did the south Vietnamese? like someone else said.... End of................................Lol.........

Edited August 11, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

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.

Conveniently overlooked the part about an "official surrender" to make your specious comments yes??

[WarpSpeed]

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

Really? Or the prize just wasn't worth the additional loss of life on both sides? I think if memory serves when the U.S. want's to commit to winning a war, at the time they had a distinct advantage in nuclear science over the village people of Vietnam, if it was that critical to win and in our best interest it is certain we would have pulled out the stops eh? As the Japanese found out who was going to stop us? Today is bit different story but clearly we had more political influence from within our own country and THAT is why we WITHDREW..

[WarpSpeed]

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.

:clap2: Bingo! We have a realist and winner!

[WarpSpeed]

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.

Then you are seriously naive and probably were hiding under a rock at the time or had your head in the sand...Oh! Now I see! You're not from the States so you only got the guarded reports and half truths, not the real in your face reports...

[Jingthing]

I agree the US stopped largely because of domestic pressures. I don't accept that the main motivation to protest the war was avoiding service though. I personally was a very active protester and I would have never been allowed to serve for medical reasons (not even to mention being gay).

[WarpSpeed]

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......

And yet none of those positions Stateside but you can comment informatively on the public political pressure being exerted at the time? Not likely a very informed perspective..

Edited August 11, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

I agree the US stopped largely because of domestic pressures. I don't accept that the main motivation to protest the war was avoiding service though. I personally was a very active protester and I would have never been allowed to serve for medical reasons (not even to mention being gay).

So your example was the standard for the preponderance of protesters? Not very likely...In fact definitely not likely, it is a serious extreme actually, it was all about the peace/love generation and not wanting to be a part of having to fight any war let alone one that was seen as a foreign war that most saw no purpose for and also wanted just to live the unrestrained and free wheeling hippy life a rejection of all things representing conformity.. Let's not forget the predominant mantra of the time about "peace and love", "waging love and not war" flower power, etc...

Edited August 11, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

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.

Sorry, I seem to keep paraphrasing you almost verbatim as I read and respond, it's not intentional but it is ironic ...

[WarpSpeed]

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.

Oh so you believe that they will roll over if the Chinese continue to lay claims to their perceived territory and possibly oil and gas rights in the south China sea?? I seriously doubt it... Now who's memory is convenient? At the time of the Vietnam war there was far less at stake in their minds then there is now and look what determination they had at that point.. Being nationalistic is exactly what would inspire them to do it...

Edited August 11, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[electau]

Here is an interesting article for what it is worth from the SMH Australia .

http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinese-general-backs-the-american-dream-20100811-11zsr.html

[Ulysses G.]

I agree the US stopped largely because of domestic pressures. I don't accept that the main motivation to protest the war was avoiding service though. I personally was a very active protester and I would have never been allowed to serve for medical reasons (not even to mention being gay).

I'm pretty sure that one or two of the protesters were sincere, but the likes of John Lennon were just being fashionable (and I love his music).

[LaoPo]

Here is an interesting article for what it is worth from the SMH Australia .

http://www.theage.co...0811-11zsr.html

Not the only -positive- article about General Liu Yazhou who's preaching and foreseeing a change in the political system in China. Brave man he is:

General and scholar test reform waters

"Without democracy, it is impossible for China to continue on a long-lasting upward trajectory, Liu said. "A system is bound to fall, if it fails to let its citizens breathe freely and enable them to maximally realize their creativity, and if it fails to send those to the leadership who can best represent this system and the people."

From:

http://www.atimes.co...a/LH12Ad01.html

LaoPo

[PhilHarries]

I'm pretty sure that one or two of the protesters were sincere, but the likes of John Lennon were just being fashionable (and I love his music).

JL of course being British wouldn't have had to serve but like so many others of that era never missed a chance of some hip, fashionable PR.

Funny how everyone remembers the Americans in Viet Nam, nobody remembers Dien Bien Phu and the precursors to the conflict.

btw (can't remeber who it was replied) I was being rather flippant when I was describing our interactions with our elected representatives. Democracy is preferable over the alternative even with corruption and fiddled expenses. If you could guarantee that the single party system would not be in any way self serving and would work for the good of the people as a whole that would be the system to follow. But unfortunately we are dealing with homo sapiens.

As for whether Thailand can do better by aquiescing to the Chinese, taking their money and going with the flow the answer is most probably yes if they play their cards right.

[Heng]

Yeah were there surrenders signed?? And who's country were they fighting for? Pretty poorly thought out comparison... In any comparison it's the end numbers that justify the winner and loser or a signed surrender by a given combatant if no end is determined.. Did the U.S. sign any such document? Or did the south Vietnamese? like someone else said.... End of................................Lol.........

Irrelevant. Of course a surrender is a surrender. Your earlier comment was about determining winners and losers from total number dead. Ridiculous. (cough cough), I forgot to add...

Nice back pedal.

[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.

Conveniently overlooked the part about an "official surrender" to make your specious comments yes??

Post #33 doesn't refer to official surrender. The only mention of surrender appears to only serve as a foot note to your main point that it's all in the numbers (of total dead).

Feel free to continue that brilliant logic.

[wintermute]

Yeah were there surrenders signed?? And who's country were they fighting for? Pretty poorly thought out comparison... In any comparison it's the end numbers that justify the winner and loser or a signed surrender by a given combatant if no end is determined.. Did the U.S. sign any such document? Or did the south Vietnamese? like someone else said.... End of................................Lol.........

Irrelevant. Of course a surrender is a surrender. Your earlier comment was about determining winners and losers from total number dead. Ridiculous. (cough cough), I forgot to add...

Nice back pedal.

Not to mention a lot of the dead "Viet Cong" were in fact South Vietnamese allies fighting on the U.S. side who were conveniently added into the tally to conflate body counts with success. People always forget that something like over 300,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war on top of the 50,000 odd U.S. and 20,000 odd assorted western allied soldiers. The "war" was a lot bloodier than people think and it wasn't exactly a U.S. cake walk like a lot of military historical revisionists make it out to be.

It wasn't even a military victory/political loss like people try to spin it..it was just a total defeat.

Edited August 12, 2010 by wintermute

[mazeltov]

I notice that the anti-China propaganda machine is still functioning...

If this article would be exactly the same but anti-USA, the topic would have been closed already.

Oh yes.

[Ulysses G.]

What a shame. Mao was really a great guy.

[LaoPo]

Funny how everyone remembers the Americans in Viet Nam, nobody remembers Dien Bien Phu and the precursors to the conflict.

That's not so funny because there are reasons as of why nobody remembers Dien Bien Phu...

1. It was 1954 and (almost) nobody had television in those days and few people were interested in a battle which took place between the French and Vietnamese so far away and about which battle (and war) people couldn't even imagine what it was all about.

2. America wasn't even involved in Vietnam during that time, apart from sending military "advisors" in the early '50's to South Vietnam, and Americans, as well as the Europeans, had something else on their minds -the after WWII period- and were busy rebuilding their countries and industries. Not many people were interested in some war/battle by the French in one of their colonies.

3. Of course everyone still remember the War in Vietnam when the US was there....it was much later and by then, in the beginning of the sixties when the US started sending more and more troops, everyone could see the images of the B52 bombers, dropping their horrible loads - even on television sets in worldwide homes which started to boom in the second half of the fifties and early sixties.

It all changed with television.

LaoPo