posted
China tries again to get the EU to drop it's arms embargo and to increase it's authority in Europe. click herePosts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured Blayne would post this before you would.
There was just a story about this a month ago, Europe was planning on dropping the embargo before Bush somehow managed to threaten them enough to make them stop.
I see this going by the wayside soon. China is pouring billions of dollars into Europe (money we gave them through trade) and Europe wants to see that money continue to flow. It won't be hard for them to threaten to take their billions elsewhere if they don't get their weapons.
The US will throw the biggest hissy fit in the world, but won't get its way. I think it can be guaranteed that no US shared technology will be sold to China. Bush still has at least that much clout.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened is that China passed a law saying that they would invade if Tawain formally declared independence. That put a hold on any lifting of the weapons embargo.
Part of the problem is that China has invested in ALOT of US Government bonds...basically buying up the huge US debt. What happens when/if China descides to attack Tawian? China threatens to pull it's financial backing of the US debt and we chicken out.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I've seen this issue argued time and again on other forums. I hink we need the opinion of an economist before argueing about whats economically feasible, the only thing I confirmed is that American can't pull out of its trade with China because American companies have grown too indpendant and globalized, China == money and will throw a "hissy fit" to an idea that even resembles hurting Sino-American trade.
As for the EU embargo I've heard that it might be getting harder not easily to budge the embargo due to a more conservative leadership coming into power in key EU countries, though I may be wrong and will check the link.
As for the actual arms trade does it matter? The EU and the USA sells billions of dollars in weapons every year (older equipment usually) and selling it to China while increasing their rate of modernization will not in reality effect how any future scenario turns out, considering the ever growing Sino Defence industry, and purchases off of Russia and Post Soviet republics and of course everyones favorite arms dealer, Israel.
IP: Logged |
posted
If China doesn't need help to buy guns, tanks, and fighters...what possible reason could they have to be buying more on the international market, instead of keeping the money in the house, so to speak, by producing it domestically?
I mean it's not like they need more guns to further menace Taiwan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
China doesn't need more guns yes, but they're old guns, and the EU has new guns, purchasing them, even in small numbers will allow the PLA to continue its force reduction and forrce structure change more easily and faster, allowing it to reach superpower level military alot faster, in comparrison to say its older 1970's 3 million man PLA to todays 1.8 million man PLA.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. So this arms deal is being done to reach superpower status faster. Well, at least you're finally being honest and not weaseling around about it.
PRC wants a superpower military. Why? The only other nation on earth poses no threat to it on land, as has been said (by you) by many.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What happened is that China passed a law saying that they would invade if Tawain formally declared independence. That put a hold on any lifting of the weapons embargo.
Part of the problem is that China has invested in ALOT of US Government bonds...basically buying up the huge US debt. What happens when/if China descides to attack Tawian? China threatens to pull it's financial backing of the US debt and we chicken out.
China wouldn't dare to hurt the U.S. through our government bonds. Think about it; we have both the best military and the best economy in the world. Anything China does to hurt us would only hurt them more. Add to that the fact that our allies in Europe would be more willing to help us out in a war China began if they hurt our economy in that fashion (since it would damage the world economy pretty terribly), and you have China shooting itself in the foot. Besides, our economy is far more capable of bouncing back quickly from such a tactic than China's, by virtue of ours being stronger and trade ebbing away from China if they began an offensive war.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If China pulled support from our debt and the US economy collapsed, the world economy would collapse with it. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot at a bad time. Americans wouldn't be hurt as badly. It'd hurt us, sure, but a large part of our economy is self sustaining, and no one produces food like we do, we wouldn't starve.
China would hurt itself far more than we would be hurt by them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Which is why we need an economist to give a properly formed opinion based on cold reserch not speculation. So I won't comment further and will just say and economic discussion of a China vs USA senario are useless and foolhardy.
Why do they need to modernize? You could also extend that to say... why does any nation need to modernize? Why does any nation at all even need an army?
The question is thus pointless, China wants to play catch up. To do so and to prove it has economically matched the west, it can prove it by maintaining a large yet well-equiped army.
Its a matter of national pride, not about a desire to invade another nation.
IP: Logged |
posted
At the turn of the 20th Century, the government of Japan went on a huge modernization jag. Industrial and then military in an effort to extend their regional influence and their presence on the world stage.
They proved what they could do in the Straights of Tsushima and rang the death knell of Czarist Russia. A few years later, well, yanno.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Its a matter of national pride, not about a desire to invade another nation
And that is a matter of naive conjecture, not inside knowledge of the inner workings of the Chinese government. Or are you on Hu's mailing list?
Look at China's past, look at their writings, look at the national mentality of the leadership. They are an up and coming people who were once a great and dominant power. They want that dominance back, and the pride. They want the rebirth of a superior people in a new middle kingdom. It might no tbe the mentality of the majority of the people, but it is of the leadership, and the are the only ones who matter.
Cautious defensiveness isn't alarmist, it's prudent for a potential rival nation state.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Exactly I base this on history, few Chinese wars even in Imperial times left the borders of what they considered "Zhongguo" (joong-qwor), and even the people's that were occupied eventually became autonomus vassal states who owe a great deal of their traditional culture to China's influence. Just as say alot of todays modern culture derives from Roman's occupation and influence.
but not to detract from the original point you could count on one hand how many major offencive wars the Chinese have had, even if you cound the mongols as being Chinese as well (hey, there were absorbed into the culture afterall).
The Chinese history has been filled with mostly internal strife and few limited wars after reunification under the Qin, due to that fact that they were isolationists, and still are isolationists with a globalist touch to make money.
The Chinese has not liked the idea of conquering other peoples' being a center nation they believed that everyone already wanted ot be just like them, and to a certain extent still do, and esp and rural areas like Hunan province still somewhat xenophobic.
Thus conquest is limited also considering that modern history has shown that conquering people's with a culture sufficiently different from yours is a very hard thing to do, and especially keep that territory long-term.
IP: Logged |
posted
Your comparison of China to ancient Rome is very apt. Rome thought it wise and good to be brutal, bloody-handed conquerors and enslavers, and thought little of keeping the masses under the boots of the few, including massive numbers of slaves. Rome also was convinced of its inherent superiority to anyone and everyone else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, conquest in recent times is rarely about wanting to subjugate other peoples. It's more about access to resources.
Also, in the case of China, using historical China as a judging point for the PRC is a lot like judging Norway's politics by how the Vikings acted.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mussolini used the ancient power of Rome as a pretext for aggressive warfare. It's a common thread that runs through ancient powers now dead that want their power back.
Nice comparison Sopwith.
Rome did much of its conquering for money and slaves. I don't see China entering the slave trade, but they will need resources in the next couple decades. And Siberia, the world's greatest untapped breadbasket it sitting on their doorstep.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You both completely missed the point, the point was that the Chinese have had so few wars of aggression and even those wars were benefitial with the benefit of hindsight ei: Rome example.
using historical China I use as a precedent, historicall they have embarked on few wars becuase the Chinese were inheirently dissinterested in aggressive war outside their borders because of their 'centrist' attitudes.
Thus its safe to say that generally the Chinese were historically isolationists and generally still are, they didn't even press home their advantages in the Sino-Indian war.
Thus it can also be safe to say that using these precendents, the Chinese are still generally isolationists and still generally are dissinterested in war.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also next, if you as America had an army with mostly Shermans and Pershings wouldn't you consider upgrading them?
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Blayne. It's like arguing with an eighth grader.
You're making arguments based on the premise that China in the 21st century is the same thing as China in the 3rd century. I wasn't aware that China was communist, and using up great quantities of natural resources back in the 200's, must have been tough.
You know, generally America was isolationist too before World War I. Before 1900, other than the Revolutionary War, America spent most of its time being attacked, not attacking.
And if I was settling in for a long Cold War against a hostile communist enemy, sure, I would consider upgrading, oh wait, we did! Now, where is China's great cold war enemy? Who are they expecting a war with?
Everytime America has upgraded its military, it has been as a response to some sort of agitation, usually followed by a war. Where's China's threat? What are they arming for?
And give up on the history lessons. You can't compare present day China to the Middle Kingdom, at least not successfully.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, generally America was isolationist too before World War I. Before 1900, other than the Revolutionary War, America spent most of its time being attacked, not attacking.
It should be noted that America declared war on Great Britain in 1812. Sure, it was in response to GB impressing our sailors, but if I recall, they had actually agreed to stop doing it before we declared war. Also, France was doing it, too.
You could argue that the Mexican-American war was manufactored by the president, and was a war of American aggression. Ulysses S. Grant saw it that way.
And in 1898, America declared war against Spain despite no evidence that the USS Maine exploded due to sabatoge. Strong evidence then and now points to it being an accident.
Now, I happen to feel that the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War were justified, but they are hardly examples of America responding to attacks.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I was off by two years, I meant to include the Spanish American War as post 1900, even though it was obviously two years before it. Moving my date back two years eliminates it though.
And the British were still impressing merchant sailors from the French and American navies up to, and during the War of 1812, they also refused to abandon several forts in our territory that they had agreed to leave. The War of 1812 was in many the Revolutionary War, Part Two. I call that a defensive response to direct provocation, and in the case of impressment, a direct attack.
And I said we spent MOST of our time defending, not attacking. Until 1898, more than a hundred years of America existing, only 2 years for the War of 1812 were spend in war, and I call it defensive war. That's a fairly small fraction.
Thus, I believe my statement holds true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yet in all that time America still built up a faitly impressive armed force, their navy was pretty big in both wwi and wwii, they had a good reserve of grants and lee's in 1940.
The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
And no I am not argueing like 8th grader, and you also refused to awknoledge that you misinterpreted my original post.
Next, my arguement is valid; because I am argueing that cultural based off of historical evidence that the Chinese people have always been generally isolationists based off of the "Middle Kingdom"/"Mandate of Heaven" mentality.
IP: Logged |
quote:The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
This is not remotely true. Only after WWII did we maintain our armed forces at anywhere near the level they had been at prior to the war and victory.
Also, I'm glad to see you're acknowledging that there is still a Middle Kingdom mentality going on in China. Refreshing. But that's just semantics, your way of disguising aggressive war by saying, "Well, they just took back what was theirs a long time ago."
What the people living in those territories may want be damned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we've heard from BB that basically Tibet needed to be taken over, because of old territorial history, by the PRC. And really, it's been better for them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yet in all that time America still built up a faitly impressive armed force, their navy was pretty big in both wwi and wwii, they had a good reserve of grants and lee's in 1940.
The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
And no I am not argueing like 8th grader, and you also refused to awknoledge that you misinterpreted my original post.
Next, my arguement is valid; because I am argueing that cultural based off of historical evidence that the Chinese people have always been generally isolationists based off of the "Middle Kingdom"/"Mandate of Heaven" mentality.
Actually, we basically had no army before entering WWI. In the late '30s and very early '40s our troops were training with sticks for guns and cars as tanks.
It was only our industrial capacity that allowed us to gear up for war in massive numbers. And you might recall that our tank force was not nearly as advanced as the German or Russian forces. By the end of the war we were flying some of the best planes, but only by the end of the war.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Rakeesh, stop saying what is not true or misinterpreting facts or well put together arguements in the absence of said arguements, I argued sufficiently why China was justified in reclaiming Tibet and nothing can change that.
IP: Logged |
posted
No you didn't.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes I did, and proove me otherwise, under a internationally recognized legal prospective.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And finally answer me honestly with the USA still had some 2000 Shermans and Pershings, and only about 5 Abrams, would you or would you not consider upgrading them if there were nations who have previously shown no hesitation in giving your enemies weapons and supplies when you were in a state of war with those enemies and has shown no hesitation in invading nations just because of their abundance of oil?
IP: Logged |
quote: And finally answer me honestly with the USA still had some 2000 Shermans and Pershings, and only about 5 Abrams, would you or would you not consider upgrading them if there were nations who have previously shown no hesitation in giving your enemies weapons and supplies when you were in a state of war with those enemies and has shown no hesitation in invading nations just because of their abundance of oil?
Alright, this is somewhat unintelligable but I'll try to answer anyway. The reason the US stayed armed after WW II was in part to protect Europe from a possible Soviet invasion, and things spiraled upwards in an arms race as both sides tried to best the other. The wars that America fought after World War II were mostly fouhgt in response to aggressive actions from other nations, to halt the spread of communism.
Your comparison makes no sense. China doesn't have any more significant oil reserves in its territory than any of its neighbors. It has far less in fact. The only one who has anything to fear are China's neighbors when she starts to get thirsty for oil. Or are you suggesting that China needs to arm itself in preparation to invade someone for oil?
And what current enemies does China have that have been armed by a third party?
I don't mind debating with you, but it helps to smooth the process when you argue cogently.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the CNN, People's Daily, and the CBC and the Discovery Channel, and the Learning Channel, as well as frequent several said forums. And I read about 200 books. Mostly Isaac Asimov science/politics articles.
What I mean is if America only had 2000 Shermans and Pershings when your rival (whether economically and diplomatic) had mostly T-90's and T-99's would you or would you not consider upgrading them?
Or an even better scenario, if it were 1990 and Germany had won the second world war without American involvment, and America had an obselete army and navy and airforce while Germany had all the advanced weapons they have managed to builds and produce, would you or would you not upgrade? Your evading the issue.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have a feeling Blayne is referring to Russia.
But I'll bite, becuase if he IS referring to Russia, I'm going to have a good time explaining why his comparison and theory is laughable.
Yes Blayne, If I felt threatened and my potential threatening enemy had weapons that were that much better than mine, I would consider upgrading. Now, let's hear who China's great big scary rival is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, we've heard from BB that basically Tibet needed to be taken over, because of old territorial history, by the PRC. And really, it's been better for them.
Tell that to the Dalai Lama, or any of the Tibetan exiles. And China may be liberalizing ecomically, but they are as authoritarian and repressive as they ever have been since the Much-Beloved Chairman Mao Zedong. We are talking about a country that will put a bullet in the back of your head for a word, and then turn around and *bill your family for the bullet*. It's insult added to injury taken to monstrous proportions.
Just because China is helping modernize Tibet doesn't mean they are doing them any favors. I would much sooner live in a hut and walk everywhere I go than live under an inhuman, oppressive regime like the PRC.
On a slightly different note, why don't we ever seem to hear the pro-choice lobby screaming bloody murder at China? They're certainly not about "choice" when every child after the first is simply aborted by state mandate. They'll let a woman "choose" to have as many abortions as she likes, but a choice with only one option ain't no choice, neh? Women in China don't own their bodies; the State does. I should think that both the Right and the Left would be united in such an atrocious affront to personal freedom and women's rights.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Excuse me, but America doesn't have 1.3 billion people. They do what they need to do to make sure they can keep as many Chinese as possible above the poverty line. Now the child is only aborted before birth if you manage to give birth to that Child then they won't kill the child. But it won't recieve the beenfits of a free education and healthcare.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"I have a feeling Blayne is referring to Russia.
But I'll bite, becuase if he IS referring to Russia, I'm going to have a good time explaining why his comparison and theory is laughable.
Yes Blayne, If I felt threatened and my potential threatening enemy had weapons that were that much better than mine, I would consider upgrading. Now, let's hear who China's great big scary rival is."
Currently China's greatest economic and diplomatic rival yet also the most strategically interdepended with, is of course the United States. Why would you think Russia? Sino-Russian friend ship is growing and there aint much to fight over.
The Sino-American relationship on the other hand is full of complications.
IP: Logged |
quote:Excuse me, but America doesn't have 1.3 billion people. They do what they need to do to make sure they can keep as many Chinese as possible above the poverty line. Now the child is only aborted before birth if you manage to give birth to that Child then they won't kill the child. But it won't recieve the beenfits of a free education and healthcare.
They won't kill it if it's actually born? Well, kudos the PRC for not practicing actual infanticide. I've not killed anyone in the last week or so; can I have a cookie?
Are you honestly defending the PRC in their forced-abortion policies? The policy makes a sick sort of pragmatic sense, but heaven help the demos when their leadership adopt pragmatism as their byword. There is a great deal that a society could do that is both pragmatic and monstrously immoral, and this qualifies. From any pro-life standpoint, it is despicable. From any pro-choice standpoint that is actually, you know, pro-choice, it is despicable. From a personal freedom perspective, it is despicable. How is this substantially different than the old eugenicists' dream of sterilizing the genetically undesirable? That too made a sickly pragmatic sort of sense. It would improve the human gene pool, which one could argue is badly in need of a tune-up as natural selection increasingly fails to do its job in the face of rapidly advancing medical advances. The only difference I can think of is that the Chinese don't specifically *choose* who to prevent from reproducing, although the policy *is* having the effect of culling female births, creating a glut of males such as has never, to my knowledge, been seen before at any point in history. No one has any idea exactly what kind of effect this will have. How could they? It is without precedent.
This practice is morally WRONG. There must be a line drawn where we say, "We will not cross this, no matter how *practical* or even *necessary* it may seem. So they have 1.3 billion people? Why not just kill a few million, then? Mao certainly did his best at *that* brand of population control.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then maybe they should spend less money on tanks and more money on raising their people above the poverty line
And your serious, that you think China needs to build up its arms because it should be worried about AMERICA invading? And earlier, you said they should be nervous becaue America is invading for oil. Certainly America isn't going to invade China for oil, or Pakistan, or India, or any of China's neighbors. Do you mean that China needs an army in order to repel an American attack on an Arab nation? They'd have to roll over Pakistan and Afghanistan or swing around the 'stans to get there. What do you think the chances of that happening are?
I don't buy your reasoning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Blayne, sure, but I get to play the US in this one.
All we've got is Sherman's and Pershings, up against T-72s and T-90s. Without taking an easy potshot about the poor quality of the later T-series tanks once they hit the battlefield (and the Chinese clones are much, much worse), let me say that we'd build better ones. Grow our own technology, if you will.
I assume that you're referencing China's inability to purchase F-16s on the secondary or tertiary markets right now, specifically the blocking of sales from Venezuela.
Let's look at it. It's a blatant attempt to get hardware and technology that China isn't capable of developing on its own. Without a long-standing allied relationship between the US and PRC (China before 1949 is a whole different kettle of fish), why should we allow them to make the purchases?
Simply put, we don't want them to have it, they can't make it and we're not going to let someone else sell it to them openly. Why? Because China could very well be a threat to some of its neighbors in the region. Or they could try to push the Taiwan issue again.
Sadly, the worst part of this is that they are trying their darnedest to get their hands on technology that, by our standards, is almost 30 years old. Sure, the F-16s still work, but the ones we still fly today are constantly upgraded and on their way out.
Okay Blayne, so who are the bad guys surrounding China from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons? I'd think that the PRC lost the real war on the day that Col. Sanders opened his first chicken restaurant in Beijing and Pepsi became The Choice of the Next Leap Forward. Chairman Mao's Little Red Book has been replaced by Sam Walton's lower every day prices.
And good riddance to Communist China. Mao's efforts led to millions and millions of deaths, sometimes due to purges, sometimes to empty ricebowls.
And some of those deaths came when Chinese tanks roared into Tianamen Square and ran down people who were speaking out for the right to live their lives in freedom. So to flip this argument right back to where it was before, why do they need new military gear when they can kill off their own people just fine with what they've got.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"I assume that you're referencing China's inability to purchase F-16s on the secondary or tertiary markets right now, specifically the blocking of sales from Venezuela.
Let's look at it. It's a blatant attempt to get hardware and technology that China isn't capable of developing on its own. Without a long-standing allied relationship between the US and PRC (China before 1949 is a whole different kettle of fish), why should we allow them to make the purchases? "
China already has a F-16/22 varient, the J-12 I believe.
"And some of those deaths came when Chinese tanks roared into Tianamen Square and ran down people who were speaking out for the right to live their lives in freedom. So to flip this argument right back to where it was before, why do they need new military gear when they can kill off their own people just fine with what they've got."
And you do realize there have been no offical and commonly agreed apun figure for that?
"Are you honestly defending the PRC in their forced-abortion policies? The policy makes a sick sort of pragmatic sense, but heaven help the demos when their leadership adopt pragmatism as their byword. There is a great deal that a society could do that is both pragmatic and monstrously immoral, and this qualifies. From any pro-life standpoint, it is despicable. From any pro-choice standpoint that is actually, you know, pro-choice, it is despicable. From a personal freedom perspective, it is despicable. How is this substantially different than the old eugenicists' dream of sterilizing the genetically undesirable? That too made a sickly pragmatic sort of sense. It would improve the human gene pool, which one could argue is badly in need of a tune-up as natural selection increasingly fails to do its job in the face of rapidly advancing medical advances. The only difference I can think of is that the Chinese don't specifically *choose* who to prevent from reproducing, although the policy *is* having the effect of culling female births, creating a glut of males such as has never, to my knowledge, been seen before at any point in history. No one has any idea exactly what kind of effect this will have. How could they? It is without precedent.
This practice is morally WRONG. There must be a line drawn where we say, "We will not cross this, no matter how *practical* or even *necessary* it may seem. So they have 1.3 billion people? Why not just kill a few million, then? Mao certainly did his best at *that* brand of population control."
Ok wise guy tell me how would solve a population problem? Isn't it better to abort those who aren't even considered as full human beings yet then grown up human beings? Its one thing to complain its another thing to give a solution.
China has the ability to make their own weapons, they just prefer to buy newer stuff to make it go whirr faster.
"And good riddance to Communist China. Mao's efforts led to millions and millions of deaths, sometimes due to purges, sometimes to empty ricebowls."
You do realize that you've probably done 0 research on the subject, to be fair in the great leap forward he did resign the position of Chairman and took the blame for it, dispite the fact that in the 50's a series of some of the greatest natural disasters in history struck China.
In fact the F-16 is very easy to buy off of the open market, do some research. They already have vector thrust engines for their planes it won't be long until their F-22/35 varient.
"Okay Blayne, so who are the bad guys surrounding China from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons? I'd think that the PRC lost the real war on the day that Col. Sanders opened his first chicken restaurant in Beijing and Pepsi became The Choice of the Next Leap Forward. Chairman Mao's Little Red Book has been replaced by Sam Walton's lower every day prices."
What are you talking about?
The issue to me is this: Ignorant Americans are afraid of China armament program that to all witnesses is just them replacing 3 older tanks with 1 new one, and downsizing their army from 3-1.8 million men and reorganizing their force structure.
Something that any Modern Soveriergn nation has the right to do. They see America as a potentional rival yet also a potential ally, considering how close yet strained Sino-American relations are its unsurprising.
China has also been in various disputes doing its best to placate America without having to harm their own interests or the interests of the workers and farmers involved.
IP: Logged |
quote: And you do realize there have been no offical and commonly agreed apun figure for that?
More correctly, the commonly agreed upon figure is not the official figure. That's because the officials lie.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, every nation has the right to arm themselves to the teeth. Japan had that right, Soviet Russia had that right, North Korea had that right, Germany had that right, twice. Rome had that right, Carthage had that right, Persia had that right, Assyria had that right, so on.
What you're telling me, is that none of their neighbors should have worried, after all, all those peoples had the RIGHT to arm, so their neighbors should just sit down and shut up.
Which is, of course, irresponsible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgot the US, Lyrhawn. Something like half the world's military budget? being spent to arm less than a twentieth of the world's population?
Commoners who make up those commonly agreed upon figures also lie, TomDavidson. Consider the "Kuwaiti babies killed in their incubators" of the GulfWar, or the WoMDs of the IraqWar. Just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez it's true don't make it so.
"Okay," Sopwith, "who are the bad guys surrounding" the US "from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons?" Cuz China shares common borders with two expansionary powers, India and Russia. Sits across a sea from another, Japan. And sits across the ocean from the greatest naval power of all time, the most powerful military of all time: which does make a habit of using its power to intimidate and/or replace the governments of other countries; which has been at war with three of China's bordering neighbors, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam; which is selling a nuclear delivery system to one state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan, and offering sales of the same nuclear delivery system to another state sponsor of terrorism, India, who both incidentally have border disputes with China; and which is currently engaged in war in Iraq while occupying Afghanistan. Both countries farther away from and across more borders from that greatest military power than China.
Meanwhile, China has about a fifth of the world population and is spending less than a fifteenth of the world's military budget.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
