US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[chuckd]

While some would believe the US military has wronged most of the world all of the time, let it be said the rape of Nanking was NOT performed by the US military.

The US military was helpful in defeating the scourge that performed the action. How quickly some forget.

The haters of America are out in force on this thread but their venom is misdirected.

Hate the politicians, not the military.

[LawrenceChee]

The range of issues and points of view on this thread, are fascinating to read.

I had no idea until yesterday (BBC Doc posted last night) that the Chinese machine gunned Viet troops in 1988 and took over a submerged reef out there. There wasn't much context, who started shooting first but man, seeing those Vietnamese standing waist high in water, being mowed down, was hard core.

If you think this is bad , head to Danang and visit the families generations after agent orang carpet bombing by the USA military during the Vietnam wars

That's reality for you ....I have posted some earlier information and like I say the Americans businessman who visited mostly cried after the experience and these are CEOs of big companies and later came back with their private contributions which has gone a long way to soothe the pain but the reality is there

China fears such military interference from the USA as their commanders believe in unified bombing to submission which means lots of civilian deaths and casualties generations on after the Politicians have all gone home or retired

As such China continues to talk in the background and understandably like every country wants to pursue their interests first

This is real ...a big country like China may not negotiate on fair terms all the time ...that's true but neither has any of the rest of the world when they deal with world issues.

Eg ... Germany speaks to Greece or Turkey on budgets and refugees recently ...you think they went all fair or more big Brother coming in and saying "come on get real" and negotiated based on what Germany feels is best

Politics stinks ....this who believes in fairies and unicorns will be very uncomfortable in the reality

China and Vietnam. Specifically China killing Vietnamese over some bloody reef.

Soon as you start with, "But the US......", and start lecturing, you lose credibility, and I quit reading.

That's okay if you disagree ....there are many acts here committed that has not been acknowledged or corrected , hence the real fear of the damages done by the US military as they are obliged to listen to their commanders in chief who may not always act with the best of intentions

I know acknowledging the Nam thing is really hard especially when the real victims are all alive and in hospices

Like I say unicorns and fairies ....I have never supported military intervention and will not agree to a China that uses that for SCS with its neighbors

Have a look ....it's not a lecture lots of Americans have came in and gave private help ....it's disturbing to believe this is real ...

http://mobile.reuters.com/news/picture/agent-orange-effect?articleId=USRTR26KON

Children often attempt to justify or downplay their naughty behaviour by citing all sorts of other equal or worse behaviour, real or imagined. Parents use that to teach a valuable life lesson. A lesson that seems lacking in this part of the world.

You actually think that by repeatedly trotting out some historical fact, I, or anyone, would be silenced with hypocrisy and shame? Does that canned strategy work for you with most gringos? I suspect you think you are clever but you are clumsy and painful to watch as you fumble around, miscalculating so badly.

You would do well to emulate those Americans who are distraught and emotional, instead of using them and the dead and maimed victims, as a convenient punch line to score a point. You've used them once before I think, several pages back. That says a lot about you and the country you seem to be some kind of self-pointed mouth piece and public defender for. Doing that makes you look all the more ridiculous and childish.

Standing up for what I believe is not easy and in a forum like this with so much China haters , it's exceptionally harder.

Presenting differences in viewpoints doesn't make me a mouthpiece as I have a viewpoint and want to present it , labelling seems to be more racial and presents a sense of right that only you can critique as an American

I don't agree with everything the CCP does although it does not mean I agree with everything said about the CCP too

Rather sad way to conclude a topic that on the USA military ...I am an ex serviceman ...I understand military follow orders and no critique is made of the military forces but the governments that is reckless

[55Jay]

Ok then. Cheers Lawrence.

Sent from my GT-I8150 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

Let's not get too personal. I appreciate LC for speaking out. We don't agree on most policy issues relating to the OP, but that's ok. Discussion is better than the alternatives.

That's part of the reason why it's better to have people like Obama, Kerry and HRC leading diplomatic endeavors for the US. The Republican alternatives, either Trump or Cruz, could be leading diplomacy starting in late January '17, and that's spooky. In a macabre way, Trump is scarier than Cruz. Cruz is hard right in a Bible-thumping way. However, Trump doesn't quite know which way he'll go. He flips and flops, along with being ill-informed. Add to that Trump's quick-to-anger / name-calling / easily offended character, and it's a toss up.

Unfortunately, he wouldn't be tossing salad, but instead could be tossing missiles into the atmosphere. On the other hand, Trump could be like the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz: all bark and no bite. Even Trump himself advocates; "keep your opponent guessing." That could be smart, except Trump himself often doesn't know what's best. So he even keeps himself guessing.

Edited April 26, 2016 by boomerangutang

[LawrenceChee]

The CCP agrees with that view above by Boomer ...Trump is like Kim , temperamental and has a huge ego and with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal , it makes everyone nervous and not just the CCP.

It's hard keeping Kim under control , having another crazy person across the pacific makes it even worse

The world deserves better than Trump as President and amazingly there are delegates which votes and keep allowing him to win...

I'm rooting for him to stay as a hotel investor or whatever he calls himself ....those hotels he owns are sad and really badly run

It's scary when you think he is in charge of the military

[Publicus]

The CCP Chinese Century ended before it began.

A flash in the post WW2 pan. Bad seed fraternal twin of the post-Soviet Union.

CCP Kaput.

The new young and nervous CCP dynasty of emperors in business suits are already going the way of the Russian Soviet Leninist Dodo Bird. CCP are doing all the wrong things and the SCS is the manifestation of its failures both domestic and outside the CCP's borders.

The hawks in Washington are now in charge of China policy and the rest of the world is moving with them, from G-7 to EU to India, Asean. The Brics are fallen and smashed, the silk road project of the CCP is stillborn too.

Beijing and Washington like to talk about “win-win cooperation,” but Beijing is deliberately creating zero-sum contests. So relations going forward between the two capitals will fundamentally change, and they promise to turn decidedly nasty as Beijing is forcing issues that cannot be compromised.

Washington once had a policy of moving on whenever there was disagreement with Beijing. The concept was that America could overlook current problems because eventually the Chinese would enmesh themselves into the international system and work as partners for peace. That optimistic view is changing as it is becoming increasingly evident that Chinese officials do not share American goals or the goals of China’s neighbours.

Similarly, in New Delhi there seems, over time, to be less optimism as well.

And that is why the Chinese century is coming to a close. Both the world’s most populous democracy and its most powerful one are now viewing China in darker terms—and beginning to act accordingly.

https://chinadailymail.com/2015/05/24/the-chinese-century-is-already-over/

Here is what India PM Narendra Modi told CCP in Beijing last year when CCP said India can cooperate with CCP across Asia and give it a free pass in the SCS...

Modi, however, was not persuaded to agree to what Beijing wanted. He did not, for instance, endorse Chinese president Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road.” This initiative, considered the centerpiece of Xi’s foreign policy, seeks to create trade routes through Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Indian Ocean connecting China to Europe. Modi, of course, did not give an inch on China’s expansive claims to India-controlled territory.

And in public, he surprised observers by telling the Chinese to be more accommodating. “I stressed the need for China to reconsider its approach on some of the issues that hold us back from realizing full potential of our partnership,” Modi said while in Beijing. “I suggested that China should take a strategic and long-term view of our relations.”

“For him to say we hope the Chinese will reconsider their approach—it’s very politely put,” said Siddharth Varadarajan of the Indian news site The Wire. “But that’s quite a strong way to put it.”

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/the-chinese-century-already-over-12915

India the past two years has entered a new "strategic partnership" agreement with the USA, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, Japan. It has made no new agreements proposed by the CCP Dictators in Beijing.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Publicus

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, Washington, do it. Yes, DO IT.

We know you've got the fire-power. You're constantly putting on display your military hard-ware. Stop posing, stop this muscular posturing, stop all this 'all mouth and no action'. Do it. Go and fire a load of missiles at whatever Chinese-made islands, none of us know on a world map where these islands are, but that doesn't matter. They've been put there by Beijing, hence, got to remove them.

STOP being a pussy, stop being a fake, stop play-acting. Show us that your EQUIPMENT does actually work. Life, it's all about action. Talk is cheap, it's deeds that matter. Do it, do a military strike on THOSE islands built by China.


Either do it, or SHUT UP. Stop all this ridiculous macho talk that YOU and YOUR cheerleaders are doing.

[55Jay]

The us should just do it. Force confrontation, China will back down. I think P is accurate in his view in how it will unfold.

Sent from my GT-I8150 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[AYJAYDEE]

LC: "I know acknowledging the Nam thing is really hard especially when the real victims are all alive and in hospices"

Ok, here we go, back and forth. A key factor of the VN war is: THE US DIDN'T MAKE ANY TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, before during or after its pull-out. Many regrettable/despicable things happened as a result of that war. Americans would be the first to admit it. Have Chinese ever admitted mistakes re; military escapades? No. That's the difference between group-think (China) and ability to think individually (US).

If we want to toss aspersions back and forth, let's take a moment to look at China's greatest hero of the past 100 years: It's already known that the 20th century was, by far, the bloodiest century in human history. Which leaders contributed to the most deaths? Hitler? No. Stalin? No. The leader with the most blood on his hands is Chairman Mao. And the majority of those deaths resulted from Chinese on Chinese fighting. That's something you'd never read about in Chinese history books. Chinese harbor deep-set hatred towards Japanese soldiers who killed many Chinese. But how do Chinese relate to their countrymen who killed more Chinese? Shouldn't they then hate their own citizens? Doesn't make sense, does it? And what did the American military do during the Pacific War? That's right, they selflessly went to aid the Chinese who were losing massively to the Japanese invaders. Some Americans were killed while aiding the Chinese. When the war was won, and the Americans left, did they ask for any reimbursements, or did they claim any territory? No, of course not.

selflessly went to china's aid? lol. they watched japan invade china and did absolutely nothing until they were attacked themselves!

[boomerangutang]

US-Navy-Aircraftcarrier-2.jpg

Washington, Washington, do it. Yes, DO IT.

We know you've got the fire-power. You're constantly putting on display your military hard-ware. Stop posing, stop this muscular posturing, stop all this 'all mouth and no action'. Do it. Go and fire a load of missiles at whatever Chinese-made islands, none of us know on a world map where these islands are, but that doesn't matter. They've been put there by Beijing, hence, got to remove them.

STOP being a pussy, stop being a fake, stop play-acting. Show us that your EQUIPMENT does actually work. Life, it's all about action. Talk is cheap, it's deeds that matter. Do it, do a military strike on THOSE islands built by China.

Either do it, or SHUT UP. Stop all this ridiculous macho talk that YOU and YOUR cheerleaders are doing.

Not even the presidential candidates are engaged in much macho talk about the SCS. I'm more engaged in macho talk about the SCS than any of the presidential candidates, and I'm just a guy at a keyboard. Yet no one, not even Mr. Saber Rattler me is advocating bombing the islands like some WWII Pacific warfare softening up session. TBB is trying to be witty, but it's not working, because no one is saber rattling to the extent he describes.

From a legal perspective, the International tribunal (or whatever they call themselves) will look at the history, location, a legacy of the islands. China doesn't offer any input into those sorts of proceedings because it knows it doesn't have a foot to stand on. China has already said it won't abide by any legal findings, and it's not lost on them that no court has teeth to back compliance with its findings. Chinese politburo knows it doesn't have legal right to the islands. That's why it wants to delay all proceedings (the more time which slips by, the more they can terra-form the islands, and more time to pour concrete, bunkers, missile emplacements, troop dwellings, port facilities, etc).

That's also why it doesn't want to deal with any groups, but much prefers to deal with countries one on one. It can therefore focus on making deals with individual countries, and reminding each one how much leverage it has. Economic and military leverage pimarily. Some countries may take payments to back off, such as favorable trade status, or promises of big purchases (Remember the Yingluck administration during the rice crisis? At one point, Yingluck said it had a promise from China to buy a bazillion tons. 2 yrs later we find the purchase offer was bogus. It was a ruse to shut up Thai protesters.) China has many tricks up its sleeve. It could, for example, offer a 5% royalty (but call it something else) to Philippines for oil pumped out from around the islands.

[boomerangutang]

LC: "I know acknowledging the Nam thing is really hard especially when the real victims are all alive and in hospices"

Ok, here we go, back and forth. A key factor of the VN war is: THE US DIDN'T MAKE ANY TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, before during or after its pull-out. Many regrettable/despicable things happened as a result of that war. Americans would be the first to admit it. Have Chinese ever admitted mistakes re; military escapades? No. That's the difference between group-think (China) and ability to think individually (US).

If we want to toss aspersions back and forth, let's take a moment to look at China's greatest hero of the past 100 years: It's already known that the 20th century was, by far, the bloodiest century in human history. Which leaders contributed to the most deaths? Hitler? No. Stalin? No. The leader with the most blood on his hands is Chairman Mao. And the majority of those deaths resulted from Chinese on Chinese fighting. That's something you'd never read about in Chinese history books. Chinese harbor deep-set hatred towards Japanese soldiers who killed many Chinese. But how do Chinese relate to their countrymen who killed more Chinese? Shouldn't they then hate their own citizens? Doesn't make sense, does it? And what did the American military do during the Pacific War? That's right, they selflessly went to aid the Chinese who were losing massively to the Japanese invaders. Some Americans were killed while aiding the Chinese. When the war was won, and the Americans left, did they ask for any reimbursements, or did they claim any territory? No, of course not.

selflessly went to china's aid? lol. they watched japan invade china and did absolutely nothing until they were attacked themselves!

google: Flying Tigers

[AYJAYDEE]

LC: "I know acknowledging the Nam thing is really hard especially when the real victims are all alive and in hospices"

Ok, here we go, back and forth. A key factor of the VN war is: THE US DIDN'T MAKE ANY TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, before during or after its pull-out. Many regrettable/despicable things happened as a result of that war. Americans would be the first to admit it. Have Chinese ever admitted mistakes re; military escapades? No. That's the difference between group-think (China) and ability to think individually (US).

If we want to toss aspersions back and forth, let's take a moment to look at China's greatest hero of the past 100 years: It's already known that the 20th century was, by far, the bloodiest century in human history. Which leaders contributed to the most deaths? Hitler? No. Stalin? No. The leader with the most blood on his hands is Chairman Mao. And the majority of those deaths resulted from Chinese on Chinese fighting. That's something you'd never read about in Chinese history books. Chinese harbor deep-set hatred towards Japanese soldiers who killed many Chinese. But how do Chinese relate to their countrymen who killed more Chinese? Shouldn't they then hate their own citizens? Doesn't make sense, does it? And what did the American military do during the Pacific War? That's right, they selflessly went to aid the Chinese who were losing massively to the Japanese invaders. Some Americans were killed while aiding the Chinese. When the war was won, and the Americans left, did they ask for any reimbursements, or did they claim any territory? No, of course not.

selflessly went to china's aid? lol. they watched japan invade china and did absolutely nothing until they were attacked themselves!

google: Flying Tigers

they didnt fly a mission until after pearl harbour

[Publicus]

are these companies owned by companies with head offices in china or simply ethnic chinese who are vietnamese citizens?

Kindly consider doing your own research so that you might be able to keep up plse thx.

didnt think you could answer that one! lol

Well taken thx.

This $1 billion sucker is definitely owned by the CCP.

It's also definitely back in Vietnam territorial waters, 126 miles off the Vietnam coast.

Ships of Chinese Coast Guard near the Chinese oil rig Haiyang Shi You 981 in disputed waters in the South China Sea, April 6, 2016.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-navy-commander-urges-australia-to-carry-out-patrols-in-disputed-islands-in-the-south-china-sea-20160222-gn0a9w.html#ixzz46wk2mL6w

This is the whole SCS thing in a nutshell...

Xi has declared the pursuit of "China's Dream", a national resurgence after centuries of foreign domination. Shi, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, says there are three international implications.

First, Xi wants China to be acknowledged as a superpower equal to the US. Second, he wants China to become the co-manager of global affairs with the US, a Group of Two for world governance. Third, "China must be the preponderant power in the Western Pacific and have some advantage over the US", he told me. Shi's definition of Chinese aims supports that of the commander of the US Pacific Fleet, Admiral Harry Harris, who says China seeks "hegemony in East Asia".

Shi, who has been an adviser to the State Council, China's cabinet, for the past five years, says this will be "based on an arms build up and the strategic ability to go tit-for-tat with the US and to force the US finally to recognise Chinese preponderance" in China's claimed sphere.

"China," Shi explains, "must be number one in diplomatic influence and economic clout and maybe in [military] force. It wants to prevent the US military's freedom of navigation eventually, and gradually squeeze Vietnam, the Philippines and all the others out of the South China Sea." This is precisely what the region's governments fear.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/south-china-sea-the-fight-china-will-take-to-the-brink-of-war-20160425-goe3zi.html#ixzz46wlHDj4c

Not to mention the annual $5 Trillion of trade that traverses the international sea lanes of the SCS which is a Maritime Global Commons. The SCS trade routes supply almost all the oil to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Asean, Australia/NZ.

United States and its formal treaty allies, strategic partner nations and other countries threatened by the CCP Dictators in Beijing will take steps to counter this if not to end it, and a SCS only limited USN-allied naval blockade of CCP military assets only is on the table. The current USN freedom of navigation exercises are the first step in countering CCP aggressions in the Sea and in the larger region.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Publicus

[boomerangutang]

The us should just do it. Force confrontation, China will back down. I think P is accurate in his view in how it will unfold.

However, when you say, "do it." ...what do you mean? If you mean preemptive pinpoint strikes against purely military targets, then I'm behind that. I include ports and airstrips as military targets.

If you mean embargo or trade sanctions, then I'm fully against those, because they would be counter-productive.

If you mean bomb parts of the island where there are civilians, then I'm against that.

If China doesn't leave the islands within ten days (after US strikes), then I'd recommend following up with strikes against any Navy ships/jets which challenge (or retaliate against) US forces. I could be wrong, but I think a concerted, focused campaign would be short-lived (similar to the First Iraq war).

Lest we forget, China is about 100 years behind the US in aircraft carrier development and deployment. It's more than 100 years behind the US in submarines. Nearly all the technology it has for its weapons and systems are taken from US and farang innovations, and is probably several years behind the curve at best. Don't get me wrong, Chinese has a powerful military, but it's currently inferior to the US.

And numbers of combatants doesn't mean diddly squat in the type of conflict which might ensue in the SCS. Probably more grave, if push came to shove, would be what happens on China's mainland. A fifth of the world's population would be livid, and large numbers would engage in cyber warfare. US citizens in China would also be at grave risk. It's not a good reason to forgo doing what's right (dynamic action to thwart China's territory grab), but it might be what keeps the US from taking dynamic action to assist its friends in VN, Phils, and elsewhere.

[tonbridgebrit]

While some would believe the US military has wronged most of the world all of the time, let it be said the rape of Nanking was NOT performed by the US military.

The US military was helpful in defeating the scourge that performed the action. How quickly some forget.

The haters of America are out in force on this thread but their venom is misdirected.

Hate the politicians, not the military.

Hello chuckd

I have NO hatred towards the people of America. Yes, the USA fought Word War Two, the USA did actually fight AGAINST Germany and Japan in World War Two. Yes, much of Asia today would (very likely) be a Japanese colony IF America did not enter into World War Two.

And Europe today would be made up of satellite states of RUSSIA if America had NOT of carried out the Normandy (D-Day) landings back in 1944.

I have no problems with Kentucky Fried Chicken, MacDonalds, Nike, Microsoft, Yahoo, Levi Strauss, Wrangler, Caterpillar, etc, dominating their markets and selling their goods.

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

[boomerangutang]

Ok, here we go, back and forth. A key factor of the VN war is: THE US DIDN'T MAKE ANY TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, before during or after its pull-out. Many regrettable/despicable things happened as a result of that war. Americans would be the first to admit it. Have Chinese ever admitted mistakes re; military escapades? No. That's the difference between group-think (China) and ability to think individually (US).

If we want to toss aspersions back and forth, let's take a moment to look at China's greatest hero of the past 100 years: It's already known that the 20th century was, by far, the bloodiest century in human history. Which leaders contributed to the most deaths? Hitler? No. Stalin? No. The leader with the most blood on his hands is Chairman Mao. And the majority of those deaths resulted from Chinese on Chinese fighting. That's something you'd never read about in Chinese history books. Chinese harbor deep-set hatred towards Japanese soldiers who killed many Chinese. But how do Chinese relate to their countrymen who killed more Chinese? Shouldn't they then hate their own citizens? Doesn't make sense, does it? And what did the American military do during the Pacific War? That's right, they selflessly went to aid the Chinese who were losing massively to the Japanese invaders. Some Americans were killed while aiding the Chinese. When the war was won, and the Americans left, did they ask for any reimbursements, or did they claim any territory? No, of course not.

selflessly went to china's aid? lol. they watched japan invade china and did absolutely nothing until they were attacked themselves!

google: Flying Tigers

they didnt fly a mission until after pearl harbour

You're the one putting a time frame on it. I'm not.

What other country tangibly aided China during WWII? Unless I'm mistaken, not one country other than the good ol' USA.

Brits wanted to, but had enough trouble trying to survive in Burma, Malaya, and Thailand. They did valiantly fight their way through Burma, attempting to get a supply route to China through the back door, so to speak. With Indians and Nepali alongside.

[AYJAYDEE]

are these companies owned by companies with head offices in china or simply ethnic chinese who are vietnamese citizens?

Kindly consider doing your own research so that you might be able to keep up plse thx.

didnt think you could answer that one! lol

Well taken thx.

This $1 billion sucker is definitely owned by the CCP.

It's also definitely back in Vietnam territorial waters, 126 miles off the Vietnam coast.

Ships of Chinese Coast Guard near the Chinese oil rig Haiyang Shi You 981 in disputed waters in the South China Sea, April 6, 2016.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-navy-commander-urges-australia-to-carry-out-patrols-in-disputed-islands-in-the-south-china-sea-20160222-gn0a9w.html#ixzz46wk2mL6w

This is the whole SCS thing in a nutshell...

Xi has declared the pursuit of "China's Dream", a national resurgence after centuries of foreign domination. Shi, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, says there are three international implications.

First, Xi wants China to be acknowledged as a superpower equal to the US. Second, he wants China to become the co-manager of global affairs with the US, a Group of Two for world governance. Third, "China must be the preponderant power in the Western Pacific and have some advantage over the US", he told me. Shi's definition of Chinese aims supports that of the commander of the US Pacific Fleet, Admiral Harry Harris, who says China seeks "hegemony in East Asia".

Shi, who has been an adviser to the State Council, China's cabinet, for the past five years, says this will be "based on an arms build up and the strategic ability to go tit-for-tat with the US and to force the US finally to recognise Chinese preponderance" in China's claimed sphere.

"China," Shi explains, "must be number one in diplomatic influence and economic clout and maybe in [military] force. It wants to prevent the US military's freedom of navigation eventually, and gradually squeeze Vietnam, the Philippines and all the others out of the South China Sea." This is precisely what the region's governments fear.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/south-china-sea-the-fight-china-will-take-to-the-brink-of-war-20160425-goe3zi.html#ixzz46wlHDj4c

Not to mention the annual $5 Trillion of trade that traverses the international sea lanes of the SCS which is a Maritime Global Commons. The SCS trade routes supply almost all the oil to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Asean, Australia/NZ.

United States and its formal treaty allies, strategic partner nations and other countries threatened by the CCP Dictators in Beijing will take steps to counter this if not to end it, and a SCS only limited USN-allied naval blockade of CCP military assets only is on the table. The current USN freedom of navigation exercises are the first step in countering CCP aggressions in the Sea and in the larger region.

just answer my question and spare me the obfuscation

[boomerangutang]

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

I suggest you scroll back and take a look at my post (about a dozen posts prior) which gives a nutshell overview of conflicts which have involved the US, and others which have involved China, over the prior decades.

You'll notice that in none of the US incursions was there any territory grab by the Yanks. Sure, it can be debated for weeks on end whether those incursions were justified or not, or whether they were more harmful for the people they aimed to assist. But the key point I'm trying to make is THERE WERE NO TERRITORY GRABS.

In contrast, over the same decades, nearly every incursion by Chinese forces involved additions of territory. Even Taiwan, though that's been a failure thus far.

The US and China have different perspectives on world dynamics. China pretends it has no plans to interfere with other countries' affairs. Even when tragedies are taking place (Hutu and Tutsi slaughtering each other, for example), Chinese can comfortably sit back and watch. If there's territory to be gained (Tibet, for example) or resources (Africa or SCS, for example) then China takes action. It acts purely for its own interests, while pretending it adheres to non-interference.

The US, on the other hand, has pie-in-the-sky ideas about instilling democracy in places like Iraq. Granted, the US has stumbled badly in many int'l theaters, but it largely is acting with altruistic interests, with other less commendable interests muddying the waters. That's why the US intervened in Kuwait, in Yugoslavia, in E.Timor, in Somalia. Intervention can often be very messy. The US invading Afghanistan was to kick out the Taliban (after 9-11) and try to enable the Afghans a semblance of democracy. It hasn't worked. The US has made mistakes, but for many decades, it hasn't tried coveting new territories for itself. The same can't be said for China.

[LawrenceChee]

Let's not kid ourselves all the conflicts mentioned above had one big reason : control of oil which in today's world at this pricing is not valuable anymore probably explains why the USA is backing away since they had no Long term solutions beyond the grand dreams of democracy

The other main reason why there is no territorial grab is Americans are in general not able to adapt very well to a new environment ...you seriously think any president can persuade any US citizens to live in Afghanistan ?

Try reading the Chiangmai sub forum ...there are some posters there arguing about how a 5 baht increase to their noodle bowls is the greatest sin ever committed by the governments and how living cost and supermarkets in Rimping is ripping them off

Love to see them move to Iraq etc....they will be real popular there

The Chinese on the other hand are more hardy ....

Edited April 26, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[AYJAYDEE]

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

I suggest you scroll back and take a look at my post (about a dozen posts prior) which gives a nutshell overview of conflicts which have involved the US, and others which have involved China, over the prior decades.

You'll notice that in none of the US incursions was there any territory grab by the Yanks. Sure, it can be debated for weeks on end whether those incursions were justified or not, or whether they were more harmful for the people they aimed to assist. But the key point I'm trying to make is THERE WERE NO TERRITORY GRABS.

In contrast, over the same decades, nearly every incursion by Chinese forces involved additions of territory. Even Taiwan, though that's been a failure thus far.

The US and China have different perspectives on world dynamics. China pretends it has no plans to interfere with other countries' affairs. Even when tragedies are taking place (Hutu and Tutsi slaughtering each other, for example), Chinese can comfortably sit back and watch. If there's territory to be gained (Tibet, for example) or resources (Africa or SCS, for example) then China takes action. It acts purely for its own interests, while pretending it adheres to non-interference.

The US, on the other hand, has pie-in-the-sky ideas about instilling democracy in places like Iraq. Granted, the US has stumbled badly in many int'l theaters, but it largely is acting with altruistic interests, with other less commendable interests muddying the waters. That's why the US intervened in Kuwait, in Yugoslavia, in E.Timor, in Somalia. Intervention can often be very messy. The US invading Afghanistan was to kick out the Taliban (after 9-11) and try to enable the Afghans a semblance of democracy. It hasn't worked. The US has made mistakes, but for many decades, it hasn't tried coveting new territories for itself. The same can't be said for China.

do you actually BELIEVE that altruistic nonsense?? lol

[boomerangutang]

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

I suggest you scroll back and take a look at my post (about a dozen posts prior) which gives a nutshell overview of conflicts which have involved the US, and others which have involved China, over the prior decades.

You'll notice that in none of the US incursions was there any territory grab by the Yanks. Sure, it can be debated for weeks on end whether those incursions were justified or not, or whether they were more harmful for the people they aimed to assist. But the key point I'm trying to make is THERE WERE NO TERRITORY GRABS.

In contrast, over the same decades, nearly every incursion by Chinese forces involved additions of territory. Even Taiwan, though that's been a failure thus far.

The US and China have different perspectives on world dynamics. China pretends it has no plans to interfere with other countries' affairs. Even when tragedies are taking place (Hutu and Tutsi slaughtering each other, for example), Chinese can comfortably sit back and watch. If there's territory to be gained (Tibet, for example) or resources (Africa or SCS, for example) then China takes action. It acts purely for its own interests, while pretending it adheres to non-interference.

The US, on the other hand, has pie-in-the-sky ideas about instilling democracy in places like Iraq. Granted, the US has stumbled badly in many int'l theaters, but it largely is acting with altruistic interests, with other less commendable interests muddying the waters. That's why the US intervened in Kuwait, in Yugoslavia, in E.Timor, in Somalia. Intervention can often be very messy. The US invading Afghanistan was to kick out the Taliban (after 9-11) and try to enable the Afghans a semblance of democracy. It hasn't worked. The US has made mistakes, but for many decades, it hasn't tried coveting new territories for itself. The same can't be said for China.

do you actually BELIEVE that altruistic nonsense?? lol

Wars are complicated. tens of thousands of thick books have been written about them. If you've got a better spin, in a few paragraphs, let's hear it.

[Publicus]

Let's not kid ourselves all the conflicts mentioned above had one big reason : control of oil which in today's world at this pricing is not valuable anymore probably explains why the USA is backing away since they had no Long term solutions beyond the grand dreams of democracy

The other main reason why there is no territorial grab is Americans are in general not able to adapt very well to a new environment ...you seriously think any president can persuade any US citizens to live in Afghanistan ?

Try reading the Chiangmai sub forum ...there are some posters there arguing about how a 5 baht increase to their noodle bowls is the greatest sin ever committed by the governments and how living cost and supermarkets in Rimping is ripping them off

Love to see them move to Iraq etc....they will be real popular there

The Chinese on the other hand are more hardy ....

It's a 5000 year old place so it has only recently become erect.

Darwin took a hard and fast hold in 19th century China because Darwinism existed there long before there had been a Darwin.

Putin fanboyz made the same kinds of primitive arguments. They loved to believe that Russians would survive the Mad Max world after Putin, the now defunct Brics et all, killed the USD in favor of a gold standard to thereby remake the world via catastrophe and establish a new global order. Our friends at the Austrian School of Economics.

However, Washington and New York have long been well aware of these crackpot Tom Clancy schemes. So have London, Brussels, Frankfort and the rest of the West and its allies in the global North and global South, respectively. They've not been idle y'know. Or maybe you don't know. Definitely do not know.

Which is why Putin is on the ropes, Bricks are smashed to include their pink elephant Development Bank, and why CCP's grandoise Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank is stillborn. CCP's economy was long ago estimated by global banking and also investment houses to begin to deteriorate in significant ways in 2016. But hey, youse guyz over there are ahead of schedule as the crumbling, the crashing and the bubble bursting erupted in serious terms last year, early in the summer.

SCS will be no more successful as CCP is immature as a power, both regionally and globally, and in terms of its economics, financial system, its military. This includes human resources and technological resources, and, above all, its still intact and determining ancient culture and mindset.

The world does know above all else however that the only thing to fear more than a rising China is a falling China. So get out those old loincloths, shovels, picks and hoes.

[AYJAYDEE]

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

I suggest you scroll back and take a look at my post (about a dozen posts prior) which gives a nutshell overview of conflicts which have involved the US, and others which have involved China, over the prior decades.

You'll notice that in none of the US incursions was there any territory grab by the Yanks. Sure, it can be debated for weeks on end whether those incursions were justified or not, or whether they were more harmful for the people they aimed to assist. But the key point I'm trying to make is THERE WERE NO TERRITORY GRABS.

In contrast, over the same decades, nearly every incursion by Chinese forces involved additions of territory. Even Taiwan, though that's been a failure thus far.

The US and China have different perspectives on world dynamics. China pretends it has no plans to interfere with other countries' affairs. Even when tragedies are taking place (Hutu and Tutsi slaughtering each other, for example), Chinese can comfortably sit back and watch. If there's territory to be gained (Tibet, for example) or resources (Africa or SCS, for example) then China takes action. It acts purely for its own interests, while pretending it adheres to non-interference.

The US, on the other hand, has pie-in-the-sky ideas about instilling democracy in places like Iraq. Granted, the US has stumbled badly in many int'l theaters, but it largely is acting with altruistic interests, with other less commendable interests muddying the waters. That's why the US intervened in Kuwait, in Yugoslavia, in E.Timor, in Somalia. Intervention can often be very messy. The US invading Afghanistan was to kick out the Taliban (after 9-11) and try to enable the Afghans a semblance of democracy. It hasn't worked. The US has made mistakes, but for many decades, it hasn't tried coveting new territories for itself. The same can't be said for China.

do you actually BELIEVE that altruistic nonsense?? lol

Wars are complicated. tens of thousands of thick books have been written about them. If you've got a better spin, in a few paragraphs, let's hear it.

it doesnt take a few paragraphs to reiterate that america has never done anything except for self interest. period!

[2fishin2]

Let's not kid ourselves all the conflicts mentioned above had one big reason : control of oil which in today's world at this pricing is not valuable anymore probably explains why the USA is backing away since they had no Long term solutions beyond the grand dreams of democracy

The other main reason why there is no territorial grab is Americans are in general not able to adapt very well to a new environment ...you seriously think any president can persuade any US citizens to live in Afghanistan ?

Try reading the Chiangmai sub forum ...there are some posters there arguing about how a 5 baht increase to their noodle bowls is the greatest sin ever committed by the governments and how living cost and supermarkets in Rimping is ripping them off

Love to see them move to Iraq etc....they will be real popular there

The Chinese on the other hand are more hardy ....

Dude you are soooooo wrong and your arguments make no sense.

The US doesnt "land grab" because it is not what we as a society do.

[2fishin2]

What I don't like is when people (people like Publicus), who go and portray this image of China (and other countries) being dangerous and a threat to world peace. What I don't like is, is people (people like Publicus) trying to tell people that Beijing is dangerous and harmfull to planet earth, when Washington (the US government) has done far worse.

Yes, the US military is controlled by Washington (the US government). I have no hatred towards the men who are in the US military. A lot of those men are actually victims of the 'system'. It's just that I don't like the politicians who order whatever war, and who are ordering the US military today.

I suggest you scroll back and take a look at my post (about a dozen posts prior) which gives a nutshell overview of conflicts which have involved the US, and others which have involved China, over the prior decades.

You'll notice that in none of the US incursions was there any territory grab by the Yanks. Sure, it can be debated for weeks on end whether those incursions were justified or not, or whether they were more harmful for the people they aimed to assist. But the key point I'm trying to make is THERE WERE NO TERRITORY GRABS.

In contrast, over the same decades, nearly every incursion by Chinese forces involved additions of territory. Even Taiwan, though that's been a failure thus far.

The US and China have different perspectives on world dynamics. China pretends it has no plans to interfere with other countries' affairs. Even when tragedies are taking place (Hutu and Tutsi slaughtering each other, for example), Chinese can comfortably sit back and watch. If there's territory to be gained (Tibet, for example) or resources (Africa or SCS, for example) then China takes action. It acts purely for its own interests, while pretending it adheres to non-interference.

The US, on the other hand, has pie-in-the-sky ideas about instilling democracy in places like Iraq. Granted, the US has stumbled badly in many int'l theaters, but it largely is acting with altruistic interests, with other less commendable interests muddying the waters. That's why the US intervened in Kuwait, in Yugoslavia, in E.Timor, in Somalia. Intervention can often be very messy. The US invading Afghanistan was to kick out the Taliban (after 9-11) and try to enable the Afghans a semblance of democracy. It hasn't worked. The US has made mistakes, but for many decades, it hasn't tried coveting new territories for itself. The same can't be said for China.

do you actually BELIEVE that altruistic nonsense?? lol

Wars are complicated. tens of thousands of thick books have been written about them. If you've got a better spin, in a few paragraphs, let's hear it.

it doesnt take a few paragraphs to reiterate that america has never done anything except for self interest. period!

Prove your point please.

[AYJAYDEE]

Let's not kid ourselves all the conflicts mentioned above had one big reason : control of oil which in today's world at this pricing is not valuable anymore probably explains why the USA is backing away since they had no Long term solutions beyond the grand dreams of democracy

The other main reason why there is no territorial grab is Americans are in general not able to adapt very well to a new environment ...you seriously think any president can persuade any US citizens to live in Afghanistan ?

Try reading the Chiangmai sub forum ...there are some posters there arguing about how a 5 baht increase to their noodle bowls is the greatest sin ever committed by the governments and how living cost and supermarkets in Rimping is ripping them off

Love to see them move to Iraq etc....they will be real popular there

The Chinese on the other hand are more hardy ....

Dude you are soooooo wrong and your arguments make no sense.

The US doesnt "land grab" because it is not what we as a society do.

lol! america much prefers economic imperialism using puppet governments so they can continue to pretend they are a benevolent nation

[lannarebirth]

Let's not kid ourselves all the conflicts mentioned above had one big reason : control of oil which in today's world at this pricing is not valuable anymore probably explains why the USA is backing away since they had no Long term solutions beyond the grand dreams of democracy

The other main reason why there is no territorial grab is Americans are in general not able to adapt very well to a new environment ...you seriously think any president can persuade any US citizens to live in Afghanistan ?

Try reading the Chiangmai sub forum ...there are some posters there arguing about how a 5 baht increase to their noodle bowls is the greatest sin ever committed by the governments and how living cost and supermarkets in Rimping is ripping them off

Love to see them move to Iraq etc....they will be real popular there

The Chinese on the other hand are more hardy ....

Dude you are soooooo wrong and your arguments make no sense.

The US doesnt "land grab" because it is not what we as a society do.

That is correct. Our military endeavours are only an effort to support our core strengths of hanging paper for international bankers and looting the US treasury.

[Publicus]

The thread has become one of the more interesting threads ever, at least as far as this poster is concerned.

From nihilism to one-liners that could make a book of quotations, to lengthy posts full of news bulletins and expert analysis, to self-pitying pathetic posts, this thread has a variety of viewpoints, perspectives and styles rarely displayed.

We in the USA are used to being the focus of attention and the receptacle of arrows and rhetorical bombardment, so we simply argue, even against our own nihilist and anarchist countrymen where they appear. The Chinese on the other hand, do not accept becoming a global bull's eye even when it is of their own doing.

USA is the country of learning -- or as some would say, the learning country -- whereas China is as it always has been for thousands of years, i.e., the autistic country that when it gets a wrong glance in its direction erupts in a reaction that varies from the superiority of scolding lectures to whimpering self-pity.

[AYJAYDEE]

The thread has become one of the more interesting threads ever, at least as far as this poster is concerned.

From nihilism to one-liners that could make a book of quotations, to lengthy posts full of news bulletins and expert analysis, to self-pitying pathetic posts, this thread has a variety of viewpoints, perspectives and styles rarely displayed.

We in the USA are used to being the focus of attention and the receptacle of arrows and rhetorical bombardment, so we simply argue, even against our own nihilist and anarchist countrymen where they appear. The Chinese on the other hand, do not accept becoming a global bull's eye even when it is of their own doing.

USA is the country of learning -- or as some would say, the learning country -- whereas China is as it always has been for thousands of years, i.e., the autistic country that when it gets a wrong glance in its direction erupts in a reaction that varies from the superiority of scolding lectures to whimpering self-pity.

yes, america learned the vietnam lesson s well she just had to go out and get entangled in iraq just to make sure they were on the right track! lol

and no wonder youre a focus of attention:http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Edited April 26, 2016 by AYJAYDEE

[keemapoot]

The thread has become one of the more interesting threads ever, at least as far as this poster is concerned.

From nihilism to one-liners that could make a book of quotations, to lengthy posts full of news bulletins and expert analysis, to self-pitying pathetic posts, this thread has a variety of viewpoints, perspectives and styles rarely displayed.

We in the USA are used to being the focus of attention and the receptacle of arrows and rhetorical bombardment, so we simply argue, even against our own nihilist and anarchist countrymen where they appear. The Chinese on the other hand, do not accept becoming a global bull's eye even when it is of their own doing.

USA is the country of learning -- or as some would say, the learning country -- whereas China is as it always has been for thousands of years, i.e., the autistic country that when it gets a wrong glance in its direction erupts in a reaction that varies from the superiority of scolding lectures to whimpering self-pity.

yes, america learned the vietnam lesson s well she just had to go out and get entangled in iraq just to make sure they were on the right track! lol

and no wonder youre a focus of attention:http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Of course the US has a complex and bloodied history of interventions around the world. These are the things that an empire does, and they are the things that all empires have done. Some empires do it under pretext, and some do it overtly. The US often does this under the cover of the spread of democracy and a morally superior pretext like protection of free speech and assembly (such viewpoint as evidenced by some true believer posters in this thread), while sending CIA advisers in to "advise" and [kill] in places such as all over Latin America in order to effect regime change.

What is common to all empires, is that the bigger they get, the hungrier they get, and they all seek to build a bubble around their territory in the form of a sphere of influence. This influence and control of other surrounding or nearby states for self protection, and resource procurement is logical and natural.

China is not an overtly expansionist empire. You don't see examples where they invaded and occupied vast territories as the Roman or British or Soviet Empires did, for example. However, they do want and need the oil under the SCS (and they will get it, at least a large portion), and they do want to extend the bubble that protects China from potential enemies, namely the USA, and at the same time, exercise domination and control over the whole of Asia Pacific, which China considers its back yard, and not the back yard of the USA.

So, we do see flag-wavers from both China and the USA on this thread, and we also see posters with varying degrees of acceptance and admissions to the facts of life of empires as I've stated herein.

You can often tell the depth and quality of a person's critical thinking ability by their ability to understand and argue the other person's point of view. You can also tell the extent to which they are subjectively enslaved to their own political belief system and value system by these same indicators.

We have at least one or two enslaved members on this thread. Hey, I think I just made an unintentional joke about my underwear. that sounds painful, an enslaved member.