No To America's Use Of U-Tapao: Thai Opinion

[VegasVic]

Oh Goody...I can't remember the last time there was a good round of America bashing on TV.

America bashing here on the Thaivisa forum, say it isn't so. Surely such a thing has never happened

[Jayman]

The USA, The USA, why, why, why, can't the just mind their own business. All they can think about is destruction. Why can't they just get on with their own business and leave everyone else alone.

Yes indeed why cant those yanks just mind their own business and forget about and setting up a humanatarian/disaster relief aid center and a NASA atmosphereic research center at UTAPAO! Oh the horror

dam_n you stupid yanks.. stop trying to help! If people don't have food or shelter then just let them die and mind your own dam_n business. The world would be so much better without all you. (just to be clear to all you haters....this is a sarcastic post and I'm American)

[VegasVic]

I forgot just how entertaining the Thaivisa expat forum can be, I really need to check back in here more often. I think many here fail to realize that Utapao (as well as all the other RTAF bases) was (were) built by the Americans, not too mention the bulk of Thailands infrastructure Now as far as the OP's referenced article is concerned it fails on nearly every point. Obviously it is penned from an incredibly biased POV, but more importantly it bases much of its nonsense on the supposition that the U.S. and China are preparing for war aginst each other, quite pathetic and based solely on the authors fantasy For those who see the U.S. as falling apart and being taken over by China as the worlds largest economy I seem to remember a newspaper headline stating just that, it read something like " China to overtake the U.S.A. as the worlds largest economy by the turn of the century" , the "turn of the century" however that this headline refered to wasn't 12 years ago but 112 years ago The newspaper article I refer to was printed in 1895 when the worlds largest economy was the U.S. and China was the second largest economy in the world and fast on the U.S.'s heels, it seems that the U.S. didn't get knocked off its high horse and fall into anonimity back then as it will not now. With all the economic and budgetary morass the U.S. faces it will eventually grow its way out of this situation whilst China continues to pollute its air, soil and water supplies and will face monumental internal uprising when their economy begins to cool ( a situation that has likely already begun). As far as the U.S. increasing its presence at Utapao goes, I am quite sure it will come to pass as it is a win/win situatiuon, and trying to drag former PM Taksin Shinawatra into this debate is just more typical partisan political posturing by the same old bitter and lonely TV posters

[VegasVic]

"But the underlying objective is still to contain China, which is rising to challenge the fiscally bankrupt US as the main global power." I'd say that ship has already sailed. China has more wealth, the means of production, and an extremely powerful military.

"If Thailand accedes to American wishes, our relations with China will go sour. In the event of a US-China military conflict, Thailand would certainly become China's enemy. Pursuing a policy against China is counter-productive to Thailand's interests." Who says Thailand's leaders aren't smart?

The problem is that most of the US debt is owed to China. The historical precedent for this, repeated untold times, is to declare war and tell the creditor to do what a duck can't - stick your bill in your @rse.

The real poblem is that ignorant fools like yourself are allowed to post garbage like this China currently holds less than 8% of all U.S. debt, should China decide to liquidate all of its U.S. debt (which they wouldn't because it would not be in their self interest) at one time it would disrupt the markets for 3-4 weeks, but in the end it would all get absorbed and where would that leave China with its relationship with its largest trading partner, certainly without any leverage in any future discusions

[blazes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

This tells you how many countries (Thailand is a significant absence in this region) Amerika has a military presence in. China is encircled. No wonder the Chinese want to build a high speed train through Thailand to Singapore.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have (I believe) just one military base, in the Seychelles.

In all this, the people deserving of the most sympathy are the poor American taxpayers, being bludgeoned to death by real death on useless battlefields (in Afghanistan and Iraq) and by ruinous taxes, which have a long-term negative impact on the whole quality of life in the US.

[diehard60]

Ok! We can give our money to another country, when the yellow shirts close down the airportSSSS. Thailand will have no more revenu. Oh well. Sorry.

[folium]

Has any empire in human history been as geographically stretched as the USA? Empires by definition are vehicles for "bullying" as you call it. Luckily for all of us, empires eventually collapse from within.

The US "empire" is not that extensive and never was. Outside continental N.America it included (and not all at the same time) the Philippines, Liberia, US Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Cuba, American Samoa, N. Marianas, Marshall Islands, Palau, Guam, Micronesia & Puerto Rico.

All in all a whopping 0.4% of the world's land area. If you add in the USA itself it still only represents 7% of the total.

Try comparing that to the following (% of world land area):

British Empire 22.6%

Mongol Empire 16.1

Russian Empire 15.3

Spanish Empire 13.4

Force projection and trade rather than colonial occupation have been the hallmarks of US foreign policy.

[folium]

I obviously haven't been paying attention. When did the US prevent the Commies over running Thailand? I thought that the Thais handled that as an internal matter themselves, in fact many of the 'Commies" who took to the jungles are now in positions of power.

In May 1962 the US 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed 5000 troops in Thailand due to concerns that the successes of the Soviet-backed Pathet Lao would spill over into Thailand and see further communist advances in SE Asia. They stayed in Thailand until August 1962 when the threat had subsided.

Just out of interest what former members of the CPT are now in "positions of power"?

[folium]

Does "Thai Opinion" also question Chinese patrols of the Mekong and, apparently, the surrender to the Chinese military of Thai sovereignty to police its own country and arrest its own citizens?

Unless it has changed recently, the Chinese patrols do not cross into the Thai sections of the Mekong, and Chinese joint patrols are on the northern sections within China, Myanmar and Laos.

[folium]

U-Tapao airport is like anything else. Someone (entity, not a single person or family) owns it and someone leases out the facilities and makes up the rates for airplanes to land and take off. Find out who that is and you find out everything you need to know about U-Tapao. I'll give you a hint. It is not Yingluck or the Army.

U-Tapao airfield was originally bought and built by the Royal Thai Navy, before being massively extended by the USAF for Vietnam-era useage. It is still owned by the RTN as far as I am aware. Is that any secret and how does that explain the present situation?

[folium]

http://en.wikipedia...._military_bases

This tells you how many countries (Thailand is a significant absence in this region) Amerika has a military presence in. China is encircled. No wonder the Chinese want to build a high speed train through Thailand to Singapore.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have (I believe) just one military base, in the Seychelles.

I think your use of the term "encircled" is a little melodramatic. At present near China the US has military bases in Afghanistan (till 2014), S. Korea, Guam and Japan.

Ironically it has been the aggressive stance of China re the South China Sea and its claims to it that have caused concern and opened up the possibility of the US reusing bases such as U-Tapao, Cam Ranh Bay and even Subic Bay.

At present China's force projection is largely economic or "soft power" and this is being witnessed on a dramatic scale in Africa and even in the US backyard (see article below):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/americas/us-alert-as-chinas-cash-buys-inroads-in-caribbean.html?pagewanted=all

This is largely because China does not have the hard, military assets but this will change over time and aircraft carriers are a classic example of such force projection. While the present second-hand Soviet and Australian cast-offs are largely for training and familiarization, China is now building its own carriers.

[blazes]

Has any empire in human history been as geographically stretched as the USA? Empires by definition are vehicles for "bullying" as you call it. Luckily for all of us, empires eventually collapse from within.

The US "empire" is not that extensive and never was. Outside continental N.America it included (and not all at the same time) the Philippines, Liberia, US Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Cuba, American Samoa, N. Marianas, Marshall Islands, Palau, Guam, Micronesia & Puerto Rico.

All in all a whopping 0.4% of the world's land area. If you add in the USA itself it still only represents 7% of the total.

Try comparing that to the following (% of world land area):

British Empire 22.6%

Mongol Empire 16.1

Russian Empire 15.3

Spanish Empire 13.4

Force projection and trade rather than colonial occupation have been the hallmarks of US foreign policy.

You're half right and half wrong. Trade (monopoly thereof) has certainly been the ultimate aim of American "benevolence" when other countries are foolish enough to go to war and devastate themselves. (For ex, in exchange for America helping out the bankrupt Britain in 1941, Britain had to agree to give up its preferential position in places like Argentina and Singapore.

The interest in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism in the West and everything to do with protecting pipelines from Central Asia.

Your statistics re land occupancy are impressive, but only prove that, in this day and age, you don't need to actually occupy the land of serf states in order to exercise control. You can do it, as you say, via trade or by printing money to support failing banks in foreign countries (to name only two methods of retaining imperial control).

No other empire threatens America. But it will collapse because it is bankrupt. Which was how most other empires collapsed.

[spidermike007]

The author of this article left out a lot of key details in his anti-American rant. For 1 NASA is a civilian agency and part of its task is to study world wide weather. Secondly the UAV's (drones) he was referring to are mostly controlled via satellite from an air force base in Nevada. There is no advantage to moving that capability here. Third, the US Department of Defense does tons of humanitarian work world wide especially disaster relief. If my memory serves, most of that disaster relief in the last 20 years or so has been in Southeast Asia so it would only make sense to ask Thailand (the US's oldest ally in the region) about setting up some space in a little used corner of the country.

Oh my God, a sensible reply, from a man of obvious intelligence, who has actually thought the matter out, and then replied with a calm and rational reply. How refreshing. I read so many emotional rants on this forum, it is refreshing to read one that is intelligent, articulate and factual. Yes, the US engages in a lot of charitable work, and it is sometimes lost of many of us. I am American, and it is sometimes hard for me to see when the US is doing good in the world, as many of us get caught up in the aspects of US foreign policy that create problems, instead of creating benefits. So, thanks for the reminder.

[blazes]

http://en.wikipedia...._military_bases

This tells you how many countries (Thailand is a significant absence in this region) Amerika has a military presence in. China is encircled. No wonder the Chinese want to build a high speed train through Thailand to Singapore.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have (I believe) just one military base, in the Seychelles.

I think your use of the term "encircled" is a little melodramatic. At present near China the US has military bases in Afghanistan (till 2014), S. Korea, Guam and Japan.

Ironically it has been the aggressive stance of China re the South China Sea and its claims to it that have caused concern and opened up the possibility of the US reusing bases such as U-Tapao, Cam Ranh Bay and even Subic Bay.

At present China's force projection is largely economic or "soft power" and this is being witnessed on a dramatic scale in Africa and even in the US backyard (see article below):

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

This is largely because China does not have the hard, military assets but this will change over time and aircraft carriers are a classic example of such force projection. While the present second-hand Soviet and Australian cast-offs are largely for training and familiarization, China is now building its own carriers.

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California. You can clearly hear the bellows of outrage flowing out of Congress and the Ministry of Propaganda (aka CNN and Fox News).

Or just imagine if the Chinese could persuade the Canadians to allow them naval facilities on the coast of British Columbia. Whereas, on the other side of the Pacific pond, it's perfectly ok for the Americans to turn up in Taiwan or Philippines or Korea or Japan, all within easy missile distance of Beijing. Right? And the Chinese are supposed to remain passive in the face of that kind of provocation?

[folium]

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California.

This map highlights why governments in Hanoi, Manila, KL, Brunei would beg to differ with your denial of Chinese aggressive maritime claims & tactics in the South China Sea. Recent activities continue a longer term trend in this area as the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from S. Vietnam in 1974 (about 80 killed and 8 navy ships sunk or badly damaged), fought a naval engagement off the Spratlys in 1988 (about 70 dead and 3 ships sunk/badly damaged), and have occupied various reefs and islands around the Spratlys despite stronger claims by Vietnam and the Philippines.

For a seriously academic rebuttal of China's 9 Dashes claim to the South Chin Sea see below:

http://www.eurasiare...ash-claim-oped/

So that's quite a backyard claimed by China.

On the subject of aircraft carriers, their primary function is force projection beyond the range of national air bases, hence they have little real purpose within China's backyard so why do they need them unless they have ambitions on a "blue-water" navy? (see articles below). Unless you think they are just being built as ridiculous showpieces like the RTN's carrier (with no planes!)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignpo...blue_water_navy

http://www.washingto...0092404767.html

China's changing stance best summed up in this quote:

"With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said in an interview with Xinhua, the state news agency.

Edited June 9, 2012 by folium

[hawker9000]

Think the writer of this piece is being a little naive here...just say no

If the US wants to use UTP for what ever reason, they will get it, if it serves the US's interests...resistance is futile...as they will just do the same as they have done in other places...

"just say no".........."just say invade"..............."mission accomplished"...............

ROFL. Get a grip.

[blazes]

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California.

This map highlights why governments in Hanoi, Manila, KL, Brunei would beg to differ with your denial of Chinese aggressive maritime claims & tactics in the South China Sea. Recent activities continue a longer term trend in this area as the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from S. Vietnam in 1974 (about 80 killed and 8 navy ships sunk or badly damaged), fought a naval engagement off the Spratlys in 1988 (about 70 dead and 3 ships sunk/badly damaged), and have occupied various reefs and islands around the Spratlys despite stronger claims by Vietnam and the Philippines.

For a seriously academic rebuttal of China's 9 Dashes claim to the South Chin Sea see below:

http://www.eurasiare...ash-claim-oped/

So that's quite a backyard claimed by China.

On the subject of aircraft carriers, their primary function is force projection beyond the range of national air bases, hence they have little real purpose within China's backyard so why do they need them unless they have ambitions on a "blue-water" navy? (see articles below). Unless you think they are just being built as ridiculous showpieces like the RTN's carrier (with no planes!)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignpo...blue_water_navy

http://www.washingto...0092404767.html

China's changing stance best summed up in this quote:

"With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said in an interview with Xinhua, the state news agency.

This is interesting and informative (and by now way off topic!), but at the end of the day a claim is merely that...a claim. And these days it is rare for claims to be enforced by invasion (Japan and the Russians have been beating drums for years over the Kurile Islands for ex).

In the old days of empire, you'd "send a gunboat". And trample all over the territory you were "claiming". The hideous crap that the Belgians imposed on the natives of the Congo (in the Heart of Darkness) has left ramifications that are with us today.

But at the end of the day, as far as I know, Chinese imperialism (the highest form of capitalism, as Lenin rightly called it) has refrained from invading anyone (other than Tibet and some incursions on the border with India). Like the American imperialists, they are using trade as their major weapon, especially in Africa....

Sorry....Mr Mod, I am sure you will soon erase this...so, I promise to stop here.

[Soutpeel]

Think the writer of this piece is being a little naive here...just say no

If the US wants to use UTP for what ever reason, they will get it, if it serves the US's interests...resistance is futile...as they will just do the same as they have done in other places...

"just say no".........."just say invade"..............."mission accomplished"...............

ROFL. Get a grip.

LOL...Get a sense of humour.....which smiley would like at the end of this post to indicate I am being sarcastic...

[ronz28]

World has a long history of thieves/murderers that have made life miserable for millions of people:

Adolf Hitler

Emperor Hirohito

Various English Kings and Military that looted the world to build the British Empire or were kicked out trying like from China and America.

Benito Mussolini

Francisco Franco

Joseph Stalin

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

Osama bin Laden

Moammar Khaddafi

Kim Jong Ill

Mao Zedong

Idi Amin

King Louis

You have to maintain a balance of power, stand ready to stop them, die, or become their slaves.

[Soutpeel]

World has a long history of thieves/murderers that have made life miserable for millions of people:

Adolf Hitler

Emperor Hirohito

Various English Kings and Military that looted the world to build the British Empire or were kicked out trying like from China and America.

Benito Mussolini

Francisco Franco

Joseph Stalin

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

Osama bin Laden

Moammar Khaddafi

Kim Jong Ill

Mao Zedong

Idi Amin

King Louis

You have to maintain a balance of power, stand ready to stop them, die, or become their slaves.

Gadaffi

Bush, Snr and Jnr

[EvilDrSomkid]

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California.

This map highlights why governments in Hanoi, Manila, KL, Brunei would beg to differ with your denial of Chinese aggressive maritime claims & tactics in the South China Sea. Recent activities continue a longer term trend in this area as the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from S. Vietnam in 1974 (about 80 killed and 8 navy ships sunk or badly damaged), fought a naval engagement off the Spratlys in 1988 (about 70 dead and 3 ships sunk/badly damaged), and have occupied various reefs and islands around the Spratlys despite stronger claims by Vietnam and the Philippines.

For a seriously academic rebuttal of China's 9 Dashes claim to the South Chin Sea see below:

http://www.eurasiare...ash-claim-oped/

So that's quite a backyard claimed by China.

On the subject of aircraft carriers, their primary function is force projection beyond the range of national air bases, hence they have little real purpose within China's backyard so why do they need them unless they have ambitions on a "blue-water" navy? (see articles below). Unless you think they are just being built as ridiculous showpieces like the RTN's carrier (with no planes!)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignpo...blue_water_navy

http://www.washingto...0092404767.html

China's changing stance best summed up in this quote:

"With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said in an interview with Xinhua, the state news agency.

This is interesting and informative (and by now way off topic!), but at the end of the day a claim is merely that...a claim. And these days it is rare for claims to be enforced by invasion (Japan and the Russians have been beating drums for years over the Kurile Islands for ex).

In the old days of empire, you'd "send a gunboat". And trample all over the territory you were "claiming". The hideous crap that the Belgians imposed on the natives of the Congo (in the Heart of Darkness) has left ramifications that are with us today.

But at the end of the day, as far as I know, Chinese imperialism (the highest form of capitalism, as Lenin rightly called it) has refrained from invading anyone (other than Tibet and some incursions on the border with India). Like the American imperialists, they are using trade as their major weapon, especially in Africa....

Sorry....Mr Mod, I am sure you will soon erase this...so, I promise to stop here.

I hope the post was not news to you, and not off topic. The Chinese do not merely "claim" all that, they do "send a gunboat" as it were. Several in fact. There is a stand off right now at Scarborough Shoal.

The NASA climate study would significantly help the AirSea Battle concept that the US is developing now.

You should check out those links folium posted. foreignpolicy.com is quite good.

the-diplomat.com is another site which covers these matters well.

It is tiring to see posts falling into the traps of bashing one country or the other based on perceptions of "good guy" vs. "bad guy".

It is what it is. One can provide analysis of a matter and discuss it without having to make value judgements.

All the bashing is pointless.

Edited June 9, 2012 by EvilDrSomkid

[Rob8891]

World has a long history of thieves/murderers that have made life miserable for millions of people:

Adolf Hitler

Emperor Hirohito

Various English Kings and Military that looted the world to build the British Empire or were kicked out trying like from China and America.

Benito Mussolini

Francisco Franco

Joseph Stalin

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

Osama bin Laden

Moammar Khaddafi

Kim Jong Ill

Mao Zedong

Idi Amin

King Louis

You have to maintain a balance of power, stand ready to stop them, die, or become their slaves.

Gadaffi

Bush, Snr and Jnr

Margaret Thatcher

[blazes]

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California.

This map highlights why governments in Hanoi, Manila, KL, Brunei would beg to differ with your denial of Chinese aggressive maritime claims & tactics in the South China Sea. Recent activities continue a longer term trend in this area as the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from S. Vietnam in 1974 (about 80 killed and 8 navy ships sunk or badly damaged), fought a naval engagement off the Spratlys in 1988 (about 70 dead and 3 ships sunk/badly damaged), and have occupied various reefs and islands around the Spratlys despite stronger claims by Vietnam and the Philippines.

For a seriously academic rebuttal of China's 9 Dashes claim to the South Chin Sea see below:

http://www.eurasiare...ash-claim-oped/

So that's quite a backyard claimed by China.

On the subject of aircraft carriers, their primary function is force projection beyond the range of national air bases, hence they have little real purpose within China's backyard so why do they need them unless they have ambitions on a "blue-water" navy? (see articles below). Unless you think they are just being built as ridiculous showpieces like the RTN's carrier (with no planes!)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignpo...blue_water_navy

http://www.washingto...0092404767.html

China's changing stance best summed up in this quote:

"With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said in an interview with Xinhua, the state news agency.

This is interesting and informative (and by now way off topic!), but at the end of the day a claim is merely that...a claim. And these days it is rare for claims to be enforced by invasion (Japan and the Russians have been beating drums for years over the Kurile Islands for ex).

In the old days of empire, you'd "send a gunboat". And trample all over the territory you were "claiming". The hideous crap that the Belgians imposed on the natives of the Congo (in the Heart of Darkness) has left ramifications that are with us today.

But at the end of the day, as far as I know, Chinese imperialism (the highest form of capitalism, as Lenin rightly called it) has refrained from invading anyone (other than Tibet and some incursions on the border with India). Like the American imperialists, they are using trade as their major weapon, especially in Africa....

Sorry....Mr Mod, I am sure you will soon erase this...so, I promise to stop here.

I hope the post was not news to you, and not off topic. The Chinese do not merely "claim" all that, they do "send a gunboat" as it were. Several in fact. There is a stand off right now at Scarborough Shoal.

The NASA climate study would significantly help the AirSea Battle concept that the US is developing now.

You should check out those links folium posted. foreignpolicy.com is quite good.

the-diplomat.com is another site which covers these matters well.

It is tiring to see posts falling into the traps of bashing one country or the other based on perceptions of "good guy" vs. "bad guy".

It is what it is. One can provide analysis of a matter and discuss it without having to make value judgements.

All the bashing is pointless.

I hope my reference to "Chinese imperialism" was sufficient to indicate that I was not adopting a good guy/bad guy standpoint. That would be absurd.

I am happy however to see you admit that this so-called NASA "climate study" has a military intent. It would be astoundingly absurd to imagine that an arm of the US government (NASA) would not be obliged to provide military information along with its other functions re climate etc.

Similarly with the links in the previous post (foreignpolicy.com etc.)...I was trying to be polite. But while they are interesting, before you rush to praise them, you need to consider their utterly compromised source.

Academics (as Noam Chomsky has well pointed out throughout his whole career) are, all too often, the policy mandarins who have promoted some of the murderous policies that have been pursued in our lifetime, especially in the Vietnam War era.

Sorry if all that's confusing.

[blazes]

World has a long history of thieves/murderers that have made life miserable for millions of people:

Adolf Hitler

Emperor Hirohito

Various English Kings and Military that looted the world to build the British Empire or were kicked out trying like from China and America.

Benito Mussolini

Francisco Franco

Joseph Stalin

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

Osama bin Laden

Moammar Khaddafi

Kim Jong Ill

Mao Zedong

Idi Amin

King Louis

You have to maintain a balance of power, stand ready to stop them, die, or become their slaves.

Gadaffi

Bush, Snr and Jnr

Margaret Thatcher

Tony Bliar

[visionchaser45]

The USA, The USA, why, why, why, can't the just mind their own business. All they can think about is destruction. Why can't they just get on with their own business and leave everyone else alone.

Yes indeed why cant those yanks just mind their own business and forget about and setting up a humanatarian/disaster relief aid center and a NASA atmosphereic research center at UTAPAO! Oh the horror

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." The humanitarian and science motives are just to get the foot in the door. The real uses will be for less lofty purposes.

[ChiefBEM]

What a rubbish editorial which is based almost entirely on the highly unlikely and improbable idea that in the future there will be a US - China conflict. I think its safe to say that neither nation is stupid enough to engage in that idea as any conflict would be result in loses for both the winner and loser that would be far greater than the benefits of victory.

If I may, let me provide some facts which support why a major US - China conflict will not happen.

The number one country that China exports to is the US.

China exports more to the US than the next 20 countries listed combined.

Over 60% of manufactured items sold in the US are Made in China.

China holds over $1,000,000,000. In US Treasury Notes.

Regardless of the political differences between the US and China, the US is the primary customer for China products.

Without the US, China's total economy would go into a tailspin to a deep and dark pit.

Also, without Chinese products, the people in the US would have to open new manufacturing plants and / or ramp up long closed production lines and pay 3 and 4 times what the Chinese products were selling for.

Not an ideal partnership.

But breaking up would not be a good thing for the US, China, or the rest of the world.

[ChiefBEM]

What a rubbish editorial which is based almost entirely on the highly unlikely and improbable idea that in the future there will be a US - China conflict. I think its safe to say that neither nation is stupid enough to engage in that idea as any conflict would be result in loses for both the winner and loser that would be far greater than the benefits of victory.

If I may, let me provide some facts which support why a major US - China conflict will not happen.

The number one country that China exports to is the US.

China exports more to the US than the next 20 countries listed combined.

Over 60% of manufactured items sold in the US are Made in China.

China holds over $1,000,000,000. In US Treasury Notes.

Regardless of the political differences between the US and China, the US is the primary customer for China products.

Without the US, China's total economy would go into a tailspin to a deep and dark pit.

Also, without Chinese products, the people in the US would have to open new manufacturing plants and / or ramp up long closed production lines and pay 3 and 4 times what the Chinese products were selling for.

Not an ideal partnership.

But breaking up would not be a good thing for the US, China, or the rest of the world.

OOPS!!!

Not enough zeros.

China holds over $1,000,000,000,000. In US Treasury Notes.

That is over 1 Trillion Dollars in US Treasury Notes.

Over 31 Trillion Baht!

[ChiefBEM]

I don't understand why China's stance in its own backyard (with aircraft carriers etc) should be construed as "aggressive." Imagine if the Chinese navy started cruising in international waters off Washington, Oregon and California.

This map highlights why governments in Hanoi, Manila, KL, Brunei would beg to differ with your denial of Chinese aggressive maritime claims & tactics in the South China Sea. Recent activities continue a longer term trend in this area as the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from S. Vietnam in 1974 (about 80 killed and 8 navy ships sunk or badly damaged), fought a naval engagement off the Spratlys in 1988 (about 70 dead and 3 ships sunk/badly damaged), and have occupied various reefs and islands around the Spratlys despite stronger claims by Vietnam and the Philippines.

For a seriously academic rebuttal of China's 9 Dashes claim to the South Chin Sea see below:

http://www.eurasiare...ash-claim-oped/

So that's quite a backyard claimed by China.

On the subject of aircraft carriers, their primary function is force projection beyond the range of national air bases, hence they have little real purpose within China's backyard so why do they need them unless they have ambitions on a "blue-water" navy? (see articles below). Unless you think they are just being built as ridiculous showpieces like the RTN's carrier (with no planes!)

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignpo...blue_water_navy

http://www.washingto...0092404767.html

China's changing stance best summed up in this quote:

"With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said in an interview with Xinhua, the state news agency.

This is interesting and informative (and by now way off topic!), but at the end of the day a claim is merely that...a claim. And these days it is rare for claims to be enforced by invasion (Japan and the Russians have been beating drums for years over the Kurile Islands for ex).

In the old days of empire, you'd "send a gunboat". And trample all over the territory you were "claiming". The hideous crap that the Belgians imposed on the natives of the Congo (in the Heart of Darkness) has left ramifications that are with us today.

But at the end of the day, as far as I know, Chinese imperialism (the highest form of capitalism, as Lenin rightly called it) has refrained from invading anyone (other than Tibet and some incursions on the border with India). Like the American imperialists, they are using trade as their major weapon, especially in Africa....

Sorry....Mr Mod, I am sure you will soon erase this...so, I promise to stop here.

Actually, the Chinese (prior to the creation of The People's Republic of China) have a long history of aggression. Please check Chinese History.

In 1980, they even invaded Vietnam!

The PRC was upset and decided to teach the Vietnamese a lesson.

The invasion was short lived.

The lesson was also short lived.

The Vietnamese provided no resistance until the Chinese were aprox 40km inside of Vietnam.

Then massive Vietnam forces encircled the Chinese forces.

The Chinese losses have not been confirmed but they were in the thousands in a very short period of time.

The Chinese retreated back to china.

[jaideecm]

Think the writer of this piece is being a little naive here...just say no

If the US wants to use UTP for what ever reason, they will get it, if it serves the US's interests...resistance is futile...as they will just do the same as they have done in other places...

"just say no".........."just say invade"..............."mission accomplished"...............

This is nonsense. The US was denied continued use of Subic Bay in the Philippines during the Cory Aquino "People Power" days, in the face of increased Filipino nationalism. No invasion occurred, and no long-lasting ill will was borne by the Republic of the Philippines.

Thailand accepts US foreign aid hand over fist, and the writer of the Nation piece is, as usual, talking out of his a**. Thailand ALWAYS plays both sides against the middle, and has done so for its entire history. If they thought for a minute that China would somehow instigate and prevail in a regional war, the PRC flag would already be hoisted here. The writer also refers to the US as 'fiscally bankrupt', which is again nonsense, at least when considered in the world context. While it's not doing as well as usual, the US is still quite strong, and China has its own fiscal issues coming home to roost.

This is nothing more than the usual pandering to Thai emotional lability. Thailand will, of course, allow the use of U Tapao, because it's in its interest to do so, if for no other reason than to counterbalance China.

Thais have a short memory, and most of the ones talking this crap weren't even born when the US was preventing them from being overrun by Communists. And since the schools don't even teach 20th century Asian history, most haven't a clue about who did what for whom.

More Nation blather.

I obviously haven't been paying attention. When did the US prevent the Commies over running Thailand? I thought that the Thais handled that as an internal matter themselves, in fact many of the 'Commies" who took to the jungles are now in positions of power.

I was stationed at Udorn while serving with the US Air Force in 1968 and 69. I also did temp duty at Korat and NKP. During that period at NKP a communist patrol from Laos attacked a small pub in the town killing American GI's and Thais. In Udorn the communists attacked a C 130 aircraft that was taking POW's back to the US during a refueling stop.

As recent as 1990 if you wanted to take a boat from Thaton to Chiang Rai it would have armed Thai Army personal traveling in the boat with you.

All the airports in North and East Thailand was built by the US Military as well as most of the roads. The highway from Korat to Bangkok was a beautiful 4 lane divided highway built by the USA back then.

Many Thais, Americans, Aussies and Canadians were wounded or killed by communists while being stationed in Thailand. I myself was wounded while flying in a rescue chopper picking up a downed Thai A1E pilot near NKP.

The Thais have never forgotten what we did here to keep the communists out of the Kingdom. This is one reason we can get a retirement visa with just a letter from our consulate stating our income.

We Veterans who live here were very lucky not to be stationed in Vietnam during that period. Many did not experience confrontation with the communists but thay did do raids against US interests, air bases and personal.

Randy

[Soutpeel]

What a rubbish editorial which is based almost entirely on the highly unlikely and improbable idea that in the future there will be a US - China conflict. I think its safe to say that neither nation is stupid enough to engage in that idea as any conflict would be result in loses for both the winner and loser that would be far greater than the benefits of victory.

If I may, let me provide some facts which support why a major US - China conflict will not happen.

The number one country that China exports to is the US.

China exports more to the US than the next 20 countries listed combined.

Over 60% of manufactured items sold in the US are Made in China.

China holds over $1,000,000,000. In US Treasury Notes.

Regardless of the political differences between the US and China, the US is the primary customer for China products.

Without the US, China's total economy would go into a tailspin to a deep and dark pit.

Also, without Chinese products, the people in the US would have to open new manufacturing plants and / or ramp up long closed production lines and pay 3 and 4 times what the Chinese products were selling for.

Not an ideal partnership.

But breaking up would not be a good thing for the US, China, or the rest of the world.

OOPS!!!

Not enough zeros.

China holds over $1,000,000,000,000. In US Treasury Notes.

That is over 1 Trillion Dollars in US Treasury Notes.

Over 31 Trillion Baht!

So in effect...China actually owns part of the US ?...