+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 112

Thread: China warns interlopers in South China Sea

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevAnarchist View Post
    You make some very good points. I would also like to say that it's in China's best interest to make sure the US dollar is healthy and that our economic health in general is good! We are the largest client for it's consumer goods by far. It seems to me that by now nations would learn that conquering a nation with armed conflict ie war is a primitive and a no win situation when waged on a national scale. The real war, the war that does not fade into memory when the soldiers go home is the cultural and economic war.

    When in the height of the cold war we could turn on CNN and see the youths of Communist Russia or China wearing levis and drink Coke t shirts that was nearly as profound to me as seeing the American flag flying over the Kremlin. When the dollar is the dominent currency and the one all nations want to put in the bank that too is a type of security that on par with having a standing army in reserve. Of course I have over simplified it but in reality the cultural war is very, very important. Why does the Taliban and such Muslim terrorist groups REALLY fear the west? There are several reasons but IMO the primary reason is that they fear their people being tempted into the western way of life and losing them completely. Its all about losing control over them. What do they have if Islamic threats of beheading for leaving Islam are being numbed by three of four double martinis or shots and dreams of a white picket fence and the American dream? Nothing. And they know it.

    reva
    Excellent post Rev. If only the USA could get back to this soft power it would sweep China like wildfire. Chinese people have a love/hate attitude towards America. Go for the love, not the hate. That's always the easiest way.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  2. #92
    israel us tennessee
    Location: Far East TN Smokie Mnts.
    Posts: 8,748
    Blog Entries: 8
    My Latest Mood: Cynical

    Default

    Well at least we agree on something eh? Remember what Jesus said? ; 'Greed is the root of all evil' (he said the love of money but its the same thing). If not for greed communism/socialism would work and be the most fair system on earth. However the leaders and bureaucrats always end up skimming the creme off the top and the poor peasants try to hold back something for themselves resulting in the system failing. However greed drives capitalism so it will work for awhile. As for prepping its the thing to do. There are too many have not's and far too many greedy haves. Its my sad assessment that its nearly if not truly too late to fix the things that would save us, so the best I can hope for is for me and my friends ...oh and Bogie (my elderly basset hound) to ride out the coming storm, being as invisible and as benign as possible!

    reva


    Last edited by RevAnarchist; May 04 2012 at 12:57 AM.
    CHRISTENDOM, PROTECTING THE WORLD FROM RMUSLIM AGGRESSION SINCE 1095 AD. I AM THE CHRISTIAN ZIONIST REVEREND OF THE APOCALYPTIC BEARER OF THE CROSS CHURCH, AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroclitus View Post
    I'm not sensitive about anything. I just think that if you are going to set yourself up as the expert on the forum in Chinese military capabilities (which I was initially prepared to concede to you if you could convey any impression of credibility in your writing), you could write like an expert would, with precision, facts and focus and not this vague and imprecise drivel that you are shoveling out such as this post here. Even here you continue to argue that China and France are close. That's what the words, grammar and syntax say in the post above. The reality is that France is as close to China as the USA is, or perhaops even less so as they are less entwined economically with the manufacturing supply chains in the Chinese Coastal cities.
    I never "set myself up" as an expert on Chinese military capabilities. I can't be held responsible for your incorrect assessment of my knowledge base. I've written in broad terms because it's a very broad topic. I could spend hours researching every aircraft/weapon in the Chinese inventory and provide a source for each Soviet/Foreign component, or I could give you a few examples and let you decide on your own. The information is out there if you wish to get a broader picture. You are still somehow caught up on France. I never said anything about France and China having a close relationship. I said that China buys a lot of foreign weapons and reverse engineers others. I used France as an example off the top of my head and provided a few examples. You then declared it was impossible for a NATO country to provide any weapons technology to China....I countered by saying that French (and American/British/Dutch etc.) weapons are in the hands of all types of people around the world. I agree that the French are less involved with the Chinese than the Americans are....but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    You end up relying on generalized bilge such as "everyone's weapons get everywhere you know" which for one who was trying to make the point that American weapons are great and everyone else's suck, is actually really drifting off the point. Most people are pretty clear that US military technology is the best in the world. The question is "by how much". It is difficult to see how what you post adds any meaningful insight here, though try we do.
    If you know anything about the international arms industry you know that weapons get scattered to the winds. The U.S. and Russia provide billions and billions of dollars of weapons to various countries every year. Changing political situations, war, etc. often means that weapons provided in SUPPORT of the host country in the 80s are now used against the host country. When did I say that every weapon NOT American sucked? I said that most indigenous Chinese weapons "sucked" when compared to Western weapons. The Chinese themselves understand this and go out of their way to get foreign weapons or reverse engineer them. China has certainly improved its defense industry in the past few decades but it still lags behind Russian, U.S., French, U.K. etc. designs, particularly when it comes to ships and aircraft.

    You made an argument that Chinese weapons were far inferior because they were French and not American, but when pinned down it is clear that the reality is that Chinese weakness does not come from that but from the fact that its arms are poor copies of outdated technology, French and American. Your original implication was that French (and Russian) technology would trouble no-one of any significance, when in fact the latest French military technology would give China some meaningful military capability, especially when defending its own sovereign territory. China does not have the latest French military technology.
    My argument was never that Chinese weapons sucked because they were French. My argument was that Chinese weapons sucked because they were rip offs of outdated technology from other countries. The French have some of the best equipment out there. Other than your clear misunderstanding of my previous posts, this paragraphs pretty much sums up my point exactly. Nowhere did I indicate that cutting-edge Russian/French military technology was subpar.


    Your point about semantics is right. Semantics refers to the meaning of words. Arguments of any merit use semantics which express a point clearly and precisely and not through vague hyperbole or allusions. The point is not whether it is a copy, but how good a copy a Chinese jet engine will be. Generally Britain's failure is marked by its failure to extract any advantage from inventing the things that America then copies (or should we say develops). America is the nation that has been uber successful in the way it has developed and proliferated other people's ideas (including the very idea of America itself which is, ironically, French, or at the very least British). The prize goes to those who finish first, not those who start best. China has of course been a copier and the quality hasn't always been great. Japan started like that after the war (WW2). But now China is changing. I know this. I know that Chinese capitalism is fast adapting towards being an innovator, but this will still not be innovation in originating ideas but in the quality and verve in how it develops existing ideas. China is copying America in how to copy, or how to develop existing ideas into national advantage. You might not see it yet from stateside.
    I spoke in broad terms on an internet forum. You took those words and have attempted to break them down as though they were an official legal explanations. You also took them and interpreted them in a manner quite differently that I intended. You appear to have used my words as an opportunity to lash out at some positions that I myself never supported. I tried to clarify for you what my meaning was, but you've gone on to argue with me about the meaning of my own words....thus the semantics.


    In China I see it. It has its problems - not least the lack of a democratic culture where individual contribution is valued in organizations. But if it can overcome these, it's only a matter of when, not if, China becomes the most powerful nation in the world. The problem with this is that China is still dominated by the totalitarian idea, as Orwell put it, that power is more important than law. As this strength develops and China's perception of its own power develops, borders, the wishes of populations, distances and international law will mean nothing, unless China itself is induced to develop "liberal democracy with Chinese characteristics". In an era where concepts of international law (a concept that arose out of the US post WW2 hegemony) are trashed by the USA itself, and the values of human rights are tarnished by the denial of human rights to America's accused enemies, the likelihood of a tyrannical China rising, intoxicated on its own sense of power, unchecked by notions of legality or justice, causing a lot of trouble, is strong. The timing is the only interesting question.
    China will almost certainly become the world's largest economy. This doesn't translate to it being the most powerful nation on earth though. On the day that the Chinese economy usurps the American one (in gross terms) it will still lag far behind Europe/U.S. in terms of political, cultural, and military world influence. I think in the future the U.S./China/Europe will come to balance each other. The U.S. won't be the world's undisputed Superpower in 2030+ as it is today. Provided China cleans up its political system, I don't see much wrong with this.

    I know that China is catching up fast, but I'm curious as to how far behind America China is. When pressed on the nonsense you write first time you make an effort to write something more nuanced (that's a generous way of putting it), but by the time we get this, the bigger picture has been lost. Your tendency in these posts to overstate and infuse your posts with xenophobic sideswipes (belittling Sudan - that was the sound of the bully laughing at the little guy) suggests that the substance of your posts, when we actually find it, cannot be relied on. They don't read like an attempt to carefully diagnose the military capabilities of China, but more like a posturing exceptionalism. To say that China couldn't design a jet engine and then to later to concede that a country with a Space program probably could design a jet engine but that such an engine wouldn't be any good, and then to say that the difference between these two positions is a "little detail", just eliminates any credibility whatsoever from what you post here.[/QUOTE]

    Sudan is a tiny country with almost no advanced industry. I picked them at random to demonstrate a point. I can't believe you'd actually be this sensitive. Don't get offended when I call an Apple an Apple. That's what I despise most about political correctness.

    The point remains that China imports all of its jet engine technology for military aircraft. You can't dance around this basic fact. Clearly if China had the technology and industry capable of producing and designing a cutting edge jet engine, it would have done so long ago. Space isn't some magical all encompassing barometer for military technology. Russia and the U.S. have been launching satellites in space for more than half a century. In the 50s, no one could have dreamed of the engine that's fielded in the F-22 Raptor or modern Russian aircraft.
    I have no joy in strife,
    Peace is my great desire;
    Yet God forbid I lose my life
    Through fear to face the fire. -Henry Van Dyke

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroclitus View Post
    I think your post is very good but what I don't understand is why, if Hong Kong manages to adopt One Person One Vote, a One Country Two Systems solution might not work in Taiwan. I appreciate that right now Hong Kong is not democratic enough to serve as a blueprint for Taiwan, but it has the rule of law, basic human rights and a representative democracy of sorts with universal suffrage (and therefore a democratic political culture). If Hong Kong were to develop into a democratic enclave, this could serve as a basis for a Taiwanese re-unification with the Mainland. The obstacle to this is the Taiwanese nationalists, as I understand it. But these are in a minority, are they not?
    The difference between HK and Taiwan is that Taiwan is also or once the official representative of China. For Taiwan to accept a HK style One country Two system would mean that the ROC of Taiwan would have to declare full surrender and defeat to the PROC of the CCP in which up to this date they are still officially at civil war with each other.

    The KMT have prove that their system works, while the CCP have proven that their system does not that is why since the modernization of mainland China that started in the late 1970s the CCP have basically adapted the KMT model 'socialism-capitalism" but most of all the preservation and promotion of Chinese culture. The difference between the CCP and KMT is that the KMT have embrace democracy and multi party system while the CCP have not.

    Will the KMT accept surrender to the CCP?
    Or will the CCP and KMT cooperate and become the official Two Parties of One China?

    No doubt that the KMT nationalist will not accept surrender to the CCP.
    The Taiwanese nationalist will not as well, they want independence.
    The CCP will not accept surrender to the KMT or independence to Taiwan.

    The only reason HK and Macua were turn over to Mainland China was because mainland China is recognize as the official representative of China and since the lease of those Islands were made with China which was at that time the Qing dynasty. If, the ROC of Taiwan was still recognize as the official China, HK and Macua would have been hand over to them. The timing of Nixon's visit to mainland and the switching of recognition from ROC to PROC by the UN was timely, coincidental or pre plan. Taiwan or the ROC was sold out.
    Last edited by WanRen; May 08 2012 at 10:55 AM.
    Abraham Lincoln: In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.

  5. Default

    Every time I hear the word "interlopers" it reminds me of Malichai from Children of the Corn. Getting back on topic, there have been several articles about countries like Vietnam and the Philippines having disagreements about territorial boundaries w/China. One thing is certain, none of those countries are BRIC nations.
    Last edited by Space_Drift; May 08 2012 at 10:40 PM.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Space_Drift View Post
    Every time I hear the word "interlopers" it reminds me of Malichai from Children of the Corn. Getting back on topic, there have been several articles about countries like Vietnam and the Philippines having disagreements about territorial boundaries w/China. One thing is certain, none of those countries are BRIC nations.
    China can easily exert herself by forcing out the rest of the countries from those islands, none of those countries will survive a naval battle against China nor can they afford it nor will they extend the war over to China. What's keeping China from doing such a thing is blow back, China maybe militarily superior than all the rest of the SEA countries but she is not invincible from internal revolution. China's greatest enemy and threat is not the USA, or anything external but from within.
    Abraham Lincoln: In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.

  7. #97

    Default

    But I hear many nationalist voices in China (straight to my face) who take the legalist approach that China should take these islands, not because it is right or justified, but because it can. Actually the argument is that not to do something that you can do is an unnecessary exercise in self humiliation. The USA is seen as a nation that takes power, resources and influence where it can, by force. For China not to do this shows China's weakness. This is a strong indirect result of the USA trashing democratic values and the Rights of Man in the "war on terror": democracy is seen as hypocrisy. Fair trials and protection from torture are lies, covering up the exercise of raw power for self interest. China should similarly exercise raw power for self interest, goes the ugly, nationalist argument on the street.

    There is massive and ugly nationalism in China, based on feudal values and communist corruption, which urges aggressive foreign policy. The danger is that to shore up an internal power position, elements of the CCCP who are theatened by anti-graft, pre-political reform reformers, will exploit such nationalism and enable such aggressive action just to defend their own position. As in all countries history, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and whipping up xenophobia (Japan is usually a convenient whipping boy to divert attention away from government incompetence) and glorifying the exploits of the military is a great way for an unpopular politician to get back in shape.
    Last edited by Heroclitus; May 10 2012 at 06:26 PM.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  8. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post
    The difference between HK and Taiwan is that Taiwan is also or once the official representative of China. For Taiwan to accept a HK style One country Two system would mean that the ROC of Taiwan would have to declare full surrender and defeat to the PROC of the CCP in which up to this date they are still officially at civil war with each other.

    The KMT have prove that their system works, while the CCP have proven that their system does not that is why since the modernization of mainland China that started in the late 1970s the CCP have basically adapted the KMT model 'socialism-capitalism" but most of all the preservation and promotion of Chinese culture. The difference between the CCP and KMT is that the KMT have embrace democracy and multi party system while the CCP have not.

    Will the KMT accept surrender to the CCP?
    Or will the CCP and KMT cooperate and become the official Two Parties of One China?

    No doubt that the KMT nationalist will not accept surrender to the CCP.
    The Taiwanese nationalist will not as well, they want independence.
    The CCP will not accept surrender to the KMT or independence to Taiwan.

    The only reason HK and Macua were turn over to Mainland China was because mainland China is recognize as the official representative of China and since the lease of those Islands were made with China which was at that time the Qing dynasty. If, the ROC of Taiwan was still recognize as the official China, HK and Macua would have been hand over to them. The timing of Nixon's visit to mainland and the switching of recognition from ROC to PROC by the UN was timely, coincidental or pre plan. Taiwan or the ROC was sold out.
    Hong Kong was handed over to the PRC because Britain knew it could not win a war with the PRC. The PRC could have won just by cutting off water and electricity. And Britain had treaty obligations, but it would not have fulfilled these against the wishes of the Hong Kong population (which the handover was) to a government in Taipei. It was nothing to do with Nixon. The UK recognized the PRC in 1950. UK and US foreign policy towards China has been quite different and often antagonistic (post WW2 the US wanted HK handed over to China immediately).

    All that surrender stuff is nonsense to people who want one China. It's history and things change. A compromise solution would enable one country two systems. The argument against that right now is that Taiwan's democracy is much stronger than Hong Kong's and that Taiwan would not want to go backwards. As Hong Kong's democracy evolves, this objection will weaken. The only obstacle then becomes the nationalists/separatists, which as I understand form a large minority in Taiwan.

    I think most people in PRC want a peaceful re-union and are prepared to wait until this happens more naturally with political systems converging as I have described. My question is on how Taiwanese people see it. Given the current President is seen as very pro-Beijing I can only assume that there is a strong constituency in Taiwan that are looking for a gradual coming together as well.
    Last edited by Heroclitus; May 10 2012 at 06:22 PM.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  9. Default

    I am seeing a lot of Chinese tourists nowadays. We communicate in English. They are nice, young, educated, and they shop a lot: any day is boxing day

  10. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post
    The Taiwanese nationalist will not as well, they want independence.
    actually most taiwanese prefer status quo. not fully independence. but yeah, taiwan don't want to become part of china because. 1. CCP is not democratic, 2. living condition in china etc is still consider a developing world.
    Last edited by s002wjh; May 11 2012 at 07:27 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks