The Chinese agenda

IgnoranceisBliss, et al,

(COMMENT)

The US military has been engaged and winning every battle, yet that is not the way to evaluate effectiveness; as we have learned from pervious escapades.

(COMMENT)

That is a perspective, sure. It may even have some merit.

I don't happen to agree.

As the economy declines, the general revenue losses tax dollar that support both US Infrastructure improvements and the revamping of the US Military.

The US military, having lost a substantial number of resources over the last decade. Nearly every aspect of how the US military operates (from the inside out) and the operating parameters of nearly every intelligence system and combat arms platform has been compromised. The US military has no surprises left.

Additionally, within the last two decades, no military engagement ha left America in any better national security position, than when it started. How we as American view this, is unimportant. What is important is how the rest of the world views it. While we can win every conventional warfare battle, it doesn't guarantee that the $4T expense will have a positive result or earn a return on our investment.

You still need a revenue generating country if you are going to support a first rate military and defense force. And we don't have that any more.

You will forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Combat experience is much more valuable than showing some future enemies possible tactics. Also, these wars have only really revealed our counter-insurgency war fighting abilities. The majority of our aircraft and naval doctrine/technologies remain unknown to the world.

The U.S. is still generating more revenue than it ever has before. The GDP has been increasing, albeit slowly. Our real GDP is greater now than it ever has been. People have this expectation that the U.S. will remain in a constant boom like in the 90s mid 2000s. That's not going to happen, the economy goes through natural cycles. The only thing really hurting us now is the debt situation....which isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Should we be cutting government expenditures and paying off our debt? Absolutely. Does this including trimming our military? Yes, but as a country we are definitely not in any sort of state of decline. We're more accurately in a state of "lack of growth." It's amazing how emotional people become when it comes to economics/money. It's like everyone frantically selling off all their stocks during a slowing of the market. This is nothing new though. For decades people have been saying the U.S. is going down the toilet.....yet it still consistently increases its economy and standard of living.

 

Do you believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Do you believe in the Law of Gravity? Do you believe there are historical forces and processes?

If you have answered these questions in the affirmative, then do you believe Americans are somehow exempt from these laws, forces and processes?

 

I believe that the U.S. isn't going to decline or collapse in the next 20 years. It might lose some of its position as the sole superpower, but due more to other countries catching up than the U.S. regressing. Do I claim the U.S. will exist forever? Definitely not.

 

ok.........we know the Chinese military is building up rapidly, as they have the political will and the finances to do so due to a ever expanding economy.

Now we know the Americans spend a fair percentage of their GDP on defence,
I think its around 4.8% of their GDP (Is that correct?).

But, due to the banking collapse, how long do members here think that America can maintain a large budget for defence.
Do they have the political will? Will they ride out the current economic problems and maintain the same level of funds spent on defence? Or does anyone think there could be a lowering of the GDP % spent on US defence in the coming years.

Just a side note here, in relation to my own country thr UK........in relevance to our countries budget defecit.
It was announced in a speech by our defence minister that we could spend a great deal more on defence, but it was our countries interset payments on the debt that prevented the UK from fielding a much bigger defence force.

Will this happen to the US?

ps: defense is spelt defence outside of the US

 

Same with Malaysia

 

Yes, keep on scratching your head until you learn the truth.

No genocide of American Indians? Go back to school to study your history.

Following are excerpts from the book "American Holocaust" by David Stannard at http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/Pestilence_AH.html

(Begin excerpts)
.....By 1845 the Indian population of California was down to no more than a quarter of what it had been when the Franciscan missions were established in 1769. That is, it had declined by at least 75 percent during seventy-five years of Spanish rule. In the course of just the next twenty-five years, under American rule, it would fall by another 80 percent. The gold rush brought to California a flood of American miners and ranchers who seemed to delight in killing Indians, miners and ranchers who rose to political power and prominence-and from those platforms not only legalized the enslavement of California Indians, but, as in Colorado and elsewhere, launched public campaigns of genocide with the explicitly stated goal of all-out Indian extermination.

Between 1852 and 1860, under American supervision, the indigenous population of California plunged from 85,000 to 35,000, a collapse of about 60 percent within eight years of the first gubernatorial demands for the Indians' destruction. By 1890 that number was halved again: now 80 percent of the natives who had been alive when California became a state had been wiped out by an official policy of genocide. Fewer than 18,000 California Indians were still living, and the number was continuing to drop. In the late 1840s and 1850s one observer of the California scene had watched his fellow American whites begin their furious assault "upon [the Indians], shooting them down like wolves, men, women, and children, wherever they could find them," and had warned that this "war of extermination against the aborigines, commenced in effect at the landing of Columbus, and continued to this day, [is] gradually and surely tending to the final and utter extinction of the race." While to most white Californians such a conclusion was hardly lamentable, to this commentator it was a major concern-but only because the extermination "policy [has] proved so injurious to the interests of the whites." That was because the Indians' "labor, once very useful, and, in fact, indispensable in a country where no other species of laborers were to be obtained at any price, and which might now be rendered of immense value by pursuing a judicious policy, has been utterly sacrificed by this extensive system of indiscriminate revenge."

... between 95 and 98 percent of California's Indians had been exterminated in little more than a century. And even this ghastly numerical calculation is inadequate, not only because it reveals nothing of the hideous suffering endured by those hundreds of thousands of California native peoples, but because it is based on decline only from the estimated population for the year 1769-a population that already had been reduced savagely by earlier invasions of European plague and violence. Nationwide by this time only about one-third of one percent of America's population-250,000 out of 76, 000,000 people-were natives. The worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people, finally had leveled off. There was, at last, almost no one left to kill.

During the course of four centuries - from the 1490s to the 1890s - Europeans and white Americans engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas. (End excerpts)

 

If Robinson Crusoe were still alive today and live alone on a remote island but with easy access to the Internet, he won't feel lonely because he would be enjoying his time debunking all your nonsense.

 

Why make such a big fuss over the China threat when "they are still very much behind."? They are not even worth mentioned about!

I do not disagree with your comment. You may not feel hungry but you may feel thirsty. You can resist the beef steak of the bull in the china shop, but you may not be able to resist your Six-pack.

 

What we want is to equate you with Gadhafi and the Somali pirates.

 

Oh, well thanks I guess. haa

 

I equate you with Chi Mak and Dongfan Chung. Maybe Charlie Trie too.

 

Not being funny chaps, but this thread has gone off course.

I was asking what you thought about the Chinese military buildup, and its reasons and purpose............

..........i wasnt asking about somali pirates, red indians or robinson crusoe.

Thanks

 

Not for my breath before yours is taken away, as I am hot on the trail of your breath.

Yes, as a former Taoist exorcist, I have already seen an anti-Chinese demon residing in your mind. Fortunately, you are not the US President, otherwise the demon could emerge to multiply a billion fold in America.

 

This question is towards the Chinese citizens in the US.

Do you consider yourself American or Chinese......i mean you may be Chinese but you are living in the American democracy.

You have all the benefits of the American society, so can your views really be accepted by the other Americans here on this forum.

Have you considered that if your allegiance is to your heritage, then have you considered what your life would be like if you lived in China now.

I'am sure your outlook on the world affairs would be considerably different.

I'am a European, and yes no country is perfect, but at least we can say that the American military influnence since the second world war has prevented any major world conflicts.

 

mepal1, et al,

An interesting thought.

(COMMENT)

Political Will:

There actually may not be political will, but it may more be the case that there is no alternative.

A government has the responsibility to maximize the protection of the people. There is absolutely no reason for a defense force if the nation collapses economically. The healthier the economy of a country, the more it can support, through discretionary spending, a defense force.​

Duration:

They shouldn't attempt to "ride it out;" it will only slow the healing process. Economically, they should reduce defense spending - and use that savings to reinvestments in the nation; improving public programs that recirculate money in the economy and yet, rebuilding the retained earnings and the capacity to produce more. The equity also includes our investment in science & technology research, education and development programs.

One of the things that makes a nation strong is its research programs. While many under founded NASA and High Energy Research, the fact of the matter is, that this is really a form of "government outsourcing." The completion of CERN undercuts FERMI Lab, and the fact that the US no longer has a space vehicle, slows the US contribution. America is a nation of service oriented small business and not a nation of every growing and extremely strong products with an infrastructure that supports industrialization.​

Defense Spending:

The portion of defense spending that needs to be cut must be specifically targeting those expenditures that empty-out in foreign markets. Funding foreign governments and foreign-base nation building amount to tax revenue that America receives no tangible return on the investment (back into the US economy).

Cutting projects, programs, and contracts for end-items, R&D, products and services in CONUS, only aggravate unemployment and further hurt the economy.​

Force Structure and Deployments:

OCONUS deployments for which there are no tangible returns, are the first cuts that should be made.​

(COMMENT)

Again, the US cannot afford to field and deploy an armed force without a strong economy; no matter the justification. If the defense budget excessively damages the nation, it cannot help in any intervention and put the deployed force at grave risk. The nation and its economy must come first.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Because they can still harass our friends--India, South Korea, Japan--with territory disputes and even military aggression.

It's true that they don't pose much threat to the US, although they have the atomic bomb, they do pose a threat to our friends.

 

Little Brother,

I am so creeped out by your post that I can only suggest you take time out and compose yourself.

 

Incorrect propaganda.

Honestly, "American Genocode"? That book is pretty much discredited by everybody but the Ward Churchill's of the world.

Nobody denies that a huge percentage of the Indian population died. It was by disease. Much like what happened to huge percentages of Europeans when sea travel opened up to the Far East.

 

Myself, I think the answer to this should be answered by a great President and American of the past:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

And another former President said the following:

Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.

I work with a guy that was born in China. Specifically, he was born in Hong Kong, and his family fled there during the revolution. And in 1990 the moved to the US where he is now a citizen. This guy has a hatred for China now that is hard to believe. Although it is understandable, since they have killed most of his family over the years.

Whenever anybody asks him where he is from, he proudly says "I am an American, who was born in China".

 

I doubt that China will do this either but not based the refusal isn't based on honor.

China will grant basing right to the Russian Navy if She believes doing so is in Her interest. Since I don't think it is either in China's actual interest to do so or that the Chinese believe it is in their interst they probably won't do so.

If China thought that Russian Naval bases were in Her interest I don't think they would think it hurts their honor to grant them.

 

Is anyone concerned that China's boarder aggressions toward our friends, like India, will result in a conflict between the US and China?

Analysts seem to be predicting it.

 

Don't ever let your Chinese wife know your interest in somebody's twin sister.

Please refer to drunken Joe's pet topic at http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...st-women-cut-off-their-husbands-genitals.html and you may discover to your horror the terrible consequences when you wake up one fine morning.