Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (48 users) | |
|
| mahO France. June 16 2012 01:34. Posts 268 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:50 MDMA_ wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
you could not be more right my friend. The government is terrible, and leads the example for the people who emerge from the country. The things some chinese people would do for money...they would absolutely disgust you. On top of that (im not saying every single mainlander fits this mold) if you have noticed any mainlanders mmigrating to your countries, they are extremely rude, loud and in general dont conform to social norms such as waiting in line, being polite, even something as simple as holding the door for the next person. In China the term "survival of the fittest" is the way of life...except the fittest is the richest.
You obviously know them very well (= saw 2 guys being rude in a line and go on about a 1.4 billion people country on the internet), damn reading TL on international matters is quite hilarious, dont open your mouth when you dont have a fucking clue of what you're talking about. The things chinese would do for money? Is that coming from a North American individual
(and I'm talking about our culture, and yeah I include myself european in that)? Are you fucking serious?
Last edit: 2012-06-16 01:35:45 |
|
|
 Tippecanoe United States. June 16 2012 01:36. Posts 342 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:30 mahO wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:07 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On June 15 2012 12:58 Ig wrote:
Oh look, its the hate China bandwagon again.
A nation does not simply fuck with Uncle Sam without repercussions, even if it is "hate" by random forumers  .
Actually to be honest, Uncle Sam is gonna get fucked repeatedly in the next two centuries, so you guys enjoy the "Kings of the world" act for a few decades and then you'll ask Asia for scraps, mkay?
How will uncle sam be fucked repeatedly for the next two centries. I would love to know. |
|
|
| Felnarion June 16 2012 01:40. Posts 362 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:30 mahO wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:07 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On June 15 2012 12:58 Ig wrote:
Oh look, its the hate China bandwagon again.
A nation does not simply fuck with Uncle Sam without repercussions, even if it is "hate" by random forumers .
Actually to be honest, Uncle Sam is gonna get fucked repeatedly in the next two centuries, so you guys enjoy the "Kings of the world" act for a few decades and then you'll ask Asia for scraps, mkay?
Listen to this guy, his country has experience. |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 01:43. Posts 1069 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
Of course they do, being old doesn't mean being perfect. The Chinese have many great qualities, but I'm afraid they never seemed to have a talent for politics.  Relatively speaking, China is learning. Its people are demanding more and more freedom from the government since the country opened up on the world some decades ago. However, nobody would like a sudden drastic change, especially not the generation that suffered the cultural revolution. Everyone hopes to transition into democracy peacefully instead of through something like what's happening to Syria right now (which has happened plenty of times in Chinese history already).
I find it your words interesting however. Although the static situation do suggest that Europe and the West have better ethics and human conditions, the dynamic tends to be the opposite. Things like the Patriot Act and the likes do not exactly paint a bright future.
As of now, it seems that while China gradually improves, Europe is plunging deeper in a crisis that may drastically bring down the standard of living as well as human rights.
Extremist parties are gaining more and more grounds in many countries, now is the time for Europe to prove that it really did learn from its mistakes in the coming years.
EDIT: some minor syntax.
Last edit: 2012-06-16 01:48:44 |
|
|
| Ramong Denmark. June 16 2012 01:43. Posts 942 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:50 MDMA_ wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
you could not be more right my friend. The government is terrible, and leads the example for the people who emerge from the country. The things some chinese people would do for money...they would absolutely disgust you. On top of that (im not saying every single mainlander fits this mold) if you have noticed any mainlanders mmigrating to your countries, they are extremely rude, loud and in general dont conform to social norms such as waiting in line, being polite, even something as simple as holding the door for the next person. In China the term "survival of the fittest" is the way of life...except the fittest is the richest.
Never meet any Chinese people in Denmark, but I highly doubt every Chinese are like what you describe them to be.
I got nothing against the Chinese people at all. What I don't like is the government in China |
| |
|
| DeepElemBlues United States. June 16 2012 01:49. Posts 3652 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:30 mahO wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:07 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On June 15 2012 12:58 Ig wrote:
Oh look, its the hate China bandwagon again.
A nation does not simply fuck with Uncle Sam without repercussions, even if it is "hate" by random forumers .
Actually to be honest, Uncle Sam is gonna get fucked repeatedly in the next two centuries, so you guys enjoy the "Kings of the world" act for a few decades and then you'll ask Asia for scraps, mkay?
We're shaking in our boots. |
| |
|
| andrewlt United States. June 16 2012 01:53. Posts 3114 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:34 mahO wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:50 MDMA_ wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
you could not be more right my friend. The government is terrible, and leads the example for the people who emerge from the country. The things some chinese people would do for money...they would absolutely disgust you. On top of that (im not saying every single mainlander fits this mold) if you have noticed any mainlanders mmigrating to your countries, they are extremely rude, loud and in general dont conform to social norms such as waiting in line, being polite, even something as simple as holding the door for the next person. In China the term "survival of the fittest" is the way of life...except the fittest is the richest.
You obviously know them very well (= saw 2 guys being rude in a line and go on about a 1.4 billion people country on the internet), damn reading TL on international matters is quite hilarious, dont open your mouth when you dont have a fucking clue of what you're talking about. The things chinese would do for money? Is that coming from a North American individual (and I'm talking about our culture, and yeah I include myself european in that)? Are you fucking serious?
You know what's even more hilarious? There are white people lecturing members of the Chinese diaspora about mainland Chinese people. Nobody has any population statistics so anecdotal evidence is all we have going for us. This is not just some random two people in the middle of nowhere. Some of us actually live in Chinese communities and can tell who the recent immigrants are.
Seriously, tone down the aggressive language. |
|
|
| yandere991 Australia. June 16 2012 01:57. Posts 329 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:53 andrewlt wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 01:34 mahO wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:50 MDMA_ wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
you could not be more right my friend. The government is terrible, and leads the example for the people who emerge from the country. The things some chinese people would do for money...they would absolutely disgust you. On top of that (im not saying every single mainlander fits this mold) if you have noticed any mainlanders mmigrating to your countries, they are extremely rude, loud and in general dont conform to social norms such as waiting in line, being polite, even something as simple as holding the door for the next person. In China the term "survival of the fittest" is the way of life...except the fittest is the richest.
You obviously know them very well (= saw 2 guys being rude in a line and go on about a 1.4 billion people country on the internet), damn reading TL on international matters is quite hilarious, dont open your mouth when you dont have a fucking clue of what you're talking about. The things chinese would do for money? Is that coming from a North American individual (and I'm talking about our culture, and yeah I include myself european in that)? Are you fucking serious?
You know what's even more hilarious? There are white people lecturing members of the Chinese diaspora about mainland Chinese people. Nobody has any population statistics so anecdotal evidence is all we have going for us. This is not just some random two people in the middle of nowhere. Some of us actually live in Chinese communities and can tell who the recent immigrants are. Seriously, tone down the aggressive language.
You know whats funny is that he talks about mainlanders but from anecdotal experience (hey you said that's all we got yeah?) Hong Kongers are actually the loudest (FML that Cantonese is loud and obnoxious) rudest, rather arrogant, and lacks manners.
Tbh I'd rather mainlanders than HK'ers. Mainlanders generally don't carry that holier than thou attitude and their kids (the 2nd generation) fit in quite well. The HK offspring still lack class and scream at each other half way across campus in Cantonese where local children from mainlanders are generally quiet and when the HK 2nd gens actually talk normally it's solely about what IB they got in or want to get in.
Anecdotal of course.
Last edit: 2012-06-16 02:09:47 |
|
|
| andrewlt United States. June 16 2012 02:03. Posts 3114 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:38 MDMA_ wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
The rules are the rules. You are indeed correct about the British and the Falkland islands, which should pretty much explain why china even has territorial claim with these lands. Maritime controversies involve two dimensions: (a) territorial sovereignty, which are a legacy of history; and (b) relevant jurisdictional rights and interests in maritime boundaries, which are mainly due to differing interpretations of the law of the sea. If you look @ point A, which seems to be most important within this arguement, China has maps dating back to the 12th century with discovery of this island in comparison to the 17 or 18th of the "spanish" maps. Also, in regards to the second part of this "rule" China has been developing the land , and using it for many years regardless of whom owns it. This part is key right here "None of international treaties that define the extent of the Philippine territory includes Huangyan Island as part of its territory. ". If i am to believe the news reports from HONG KONG, every morning Phillippines has never claimed this land as part of theres until recently. Also, what development has occured around the area recently? The mining of oil. This has prompt the phillipines to act, such an expensive and well sought after resource. In truth this is quite unfair, to china with all this bashing. Yes i am chinese if you havent noticed, but i also hate the mainland for everything they represent; lack of human rights, a brutal communist regime etc. I am not from the maindland and neither is my family, we are from the SARs. However, i cant understand the senseless bashing of the country, bringing in topics such as Burma and Taiwain. Both those territories belong to china and not with some senseless claim. These places "DECLARED" their own independency which was never granted. Its the same way the America became its own country, except it fought and WON its independence.
It's ironic that china keeps railing against Western treaties and international law but are using the Treaty of Paris as "proof" that the Philippines doesn't own the land.
And these shoals and the islands are different from the Falklands. The Falklands are populated primarily by people of British descent who have decided that they would rather be part of Britain rather than Argentina. These shoals and islands don't have permanent settlements.
|
|
|
| andrewlt United States. June 16 2012 02:08. Posts 3114 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:57 yandere991 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 01:53 andrewlt wrote:
On June 16 2012 01:34 mahO wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:50 MDMA_ wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
you could not be more right my friend. The government is terrible, and leads the example for the people who emerge from the country. The things some chinese people would do for money...they would absolutely disgust you. On top of that (im not saying every single mainlander fits this mold) if you have noticed any mainlanders mmigrating to your countries, they are extremely rude, loud and in general dont conform to social norms such as waiting in line, being polite, even something as simple as holding the door for the next person. In China the term "survival of the fittest" is the way of life...except the fittest is the richest.
You obviously know them very well (= saw 2 guys being rude in a line and go on about a 1.4 billion people country on the internet), damn reading TL on international matters is quite hilarious, dont open your mouth when you dont have a fucking clue of what you're talking about. The things chinese would do for money? Is that coming from a North American individual (and I'm talking about our culture, and yeah I include myself european in that)? Are you fucking serious?
You know what's even more hilarious? There are white people lecturing members of the Chinese diaspora about mainland Chinese people. Nobody has any population statistics so anecdotal evidence is all we have going for us. This is not just some random two people in the middle of nowhere. Some of us actually live in Chinese communities and can tell who the recent immigrants are. Seriously, tone down the aggressive language.
You know whats funny is that he talks about mainlanders but from anecdotal experience (hey you said that's all we got yeah?) Hong Kongers are actually the loudest (FML that Cantonese is loud and obnoxious) rudest, rather arrogant, and lacks manners.
Cantonese is just an angry sounding language. Nothing you can do about that.
|
|
|
 Aeroplaneoverthesea United Kingdom. June 16 2012 02:14. Posts 1694 | Profile # |
| Well if the USA has decided to support the Philippines then itself basically settled and China will be going home with their tails between their legs. |
|
|
| Alpino Brazil. June 16 2012 02:18. Posts 2584 | Profile # |
| This whole thing is so dumb. Yay fuck humanity, go advance wars! + Show Spoiler + |
| | no gods/ no masters/ no borders/ no wars |
|
|
| Rassy Netherlands. June 16 2012 02:18. Posts 1506 | Profile # |
Proxie United States. June 15 2012 09:39. Posts 58
Looking at that map the claim seems rediculous indeed.
I thought the 200 nautical mile zone was standard and accepted by the whole world.
Does china maybe have some islands around there (not on the map) wich would make their claim a bit more reasonable? |
|
|
| mcc Czech Republic. June 16 2012 02:28. Posts 3761 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 02:14 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Well if the USA has decided to support the Philippines then itself basically settled and China will be going home with their tails between their legs.
More likely China will take what they want anyway without starting the war which will mean all those countries will become even more US satellites than they are now and both China and US is happy. Small countries will get a finger, but they do not matter in this game. |
|
|
| mpa June 16 2012 02:30. Posts 42 | Profile # |
China has been at it for years and for some reason its only now that some of the western media got wind of it. As a citizen of one of the many South East Asian countries I would like to express both my full support of the US presence and my dismay at the absurdity of some anti-US sentiments.
I simply do not follow their line of thought. Even if I agree that the US has done bad things in the past, that does not mean they should not be allowed to help. Personally, I find the US track record in these matters to be excellent. From Germany, to Japan, South Korea, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines the US has done far more good than harm. An analogue would be an robber about to plunder you and an ex-convict walks by, you cried for help and he responded. Do you think he shouldnt be allowed to help ? Even if once he did so, he'd demand some payment, you'd still be far better off than being robbed clean.
China has been flexing their imperial muscles for quite a while now. Countries are beginning to react to them. From India to Japan, South Korea and the SEA nations are all in a tow when it comes to preventing China dominance in the region. Increased US presence in the area (and favorable trade terms) is a very small price to pay to prevent that.Last edit: 2012-06-16 02:31:12 |
|
|
| hypercube Hungary. June 16 2012 02:35. Posts 1928 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:38 MDMA_ wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
However, i cant understand the senseless bashing of the country, bringing in topics such as Burma and Taiwain. Both those territories belong to china and not with some senseless claim.
WTF, China has a claim on Burma (Myanmar)? Never heard of this before. |
| | "[...] you wanna have a future where you're expecting things to be better, not one where you're expecting things to be worse." |
|
|
| DeepElemBlues United States. June 16 2012 02:39. Posts 3652 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 02:35 hypercube wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:38 MDMA_ wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
However, i cant understand the senseless bashing of the country, bringing in topics such as Burma and Taiwain. Both those territories belong to china and not with some senseless claim.
WTF, China has a claim on Burma (Myanmar)? Never heard of this before.
Some Chinese think that any territory that "China" ever ruled in the past still belongs to China. |
| |
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 02:41. Posts 1069 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 02:30 mpa wrote:
China has been at it for years and for some reason its only now that some of the western media got wind of it. As a citizen of one of the many South East Asian countries I would like to express both my full support of the US presence and my dismay at the absurdity of some anti-US sentiments.
I simply do not follow their line of thought. Even if I agree that the US has done bad things in the past, that does not mean they should not be allowed to help. Personally, I find the US track record in these matters to be excellent. From Germany, to Japan, South Korea, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines the US has done far more good than harm. An analogue would be an robber about to plunder you and an ex-convict walks by, you cried for help and he responded. Do you think he shouldnt be allowed to help ? Even if once he did so, he'd demand some payment, you'd still be far better off than being robbed clean.
China has been flexing their imperial muscles for quite a while now. Countries are beginning to react to them. From India to Japan, South Korea and the SEA nations are all in a tow when it comes to preventing China dominance in the region. Increased US presence in the area (and favorable trade terms) is a very small price to pay to prevent that.
China imperialistic towards India? Lol
I don't see much "imperialism", more not wanting to lose face internationally as well as the idea of preserving territorial integrity. Perhaps they are just tired of being weak for more than a century and want to let out some steam. China will not go to war unless it is being attacked first. It's not in their interest to do otherwise. As long as Chinese companies continue to do business with SEA countries, there's nothing they will do.
Of course, SEA countries do prefer the US over China, that is expected. I wonder if this could actually work out against the US as they waste money on more oversea bases that don't do much.
Also, China doesn't hate the US as much as some of you believe. Actually, the Americans did some huge favors for them over the course of the 20th century. Most Chinese people I know are actually quite Pro US. |
|
|
| Trollk Belgium. June 16 2012 02:59. Posts 89 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:43 RavenLoud wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:34 Ramong wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
On June 15 2012 23:57 RavenLoud wrote:
Also you're wrong. The Tibet thing is because the area was under Chinese control for a long time ever since the Tang dynasty. There have been good and bad times in that relationship, but the Chinese don't see it as "sacking" but as recovering their territory after a century of inner conflict.
Would be interesting to see British having claims to the Ireland or Russian claims to take Warsaw or Helsinki based on "long control for a long time" argument and describing that as "long century of inner conflict". I suspect there would be no outcry
It's just how it works I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's all good and dandy, just telling it how it is. Besides, Falkland islands, ring a bell? And the only reason Ireland is free is because they've earned it. It's not like the British just let em go because they were being nice.
Ireland broke free with force, true. But Europe at least have grown up since then. Just look at Scotland, they could break free of UK if they wanted to and there is talk about it. We in Europe have learned from our mistakes, atleast some of them, WW2 for example. As said we don't see Spain invade Gibraltar instead we talk. China might be one of the oldest nations in the world, but damn they got a lot to learn
Of course they do, being old doesn't mean being perfect. The Chinese have many great qualities, but I'm afraid they never seemed to have a talent for politics. Relatively speaking, China is learning. Its people are demanding more and more freedom from the government since the country opened up on the world some decades ago. However, nobody would like a sudden drastic change, especially not the generation that suffered the cultural revolution. Everyone hopes to transition into democracy peacefully instead of through something like what's happening to Syria right now (which has happened plenty of times in Chinese history already). I find it your words interesting however. Although the static situation do suggest that Europe and the West have better ethics and human conditions, the dynamic tends to be the opposite. Things like the Patriot Act and the likes do not exactly paint a bright future. As of now, it seems that while China gradually improves, Europe is plunging deeper in a crisis that may drastically bring down the standard of living as well as human rights. Extremist parties are gaining more and more grounds in many countries, now is the time for Europe to prove that it really did learn from its mistakes in the coming years. EDIT: some minor syntax.
I agree with most of what you said, however the final sentences seem quite dramatic to me (Belgian here).
First and for all: While China may seem to keep on improving gradually, until they suddenly boosting their national demand, China will not keep on growing as it still relies on both the US and the EU as its main export partners. If the crisis in Europe would reduce the average EU standard of living drasticly, no way China could achieve its 'gradual growth'.
Secondly, the 'plunging deeper in a crisis' suggests that the crisis in Europe is widespread, while in fact it is not. Agreed, interest rates do tend to get contaminated and if they require help from the IMF will the standard of life decrease significantly. However, it is very unlikely that this will occur beyond Spain and Greece. Italy actually has the fortune of having a prime minister that is capable of persuading the market.
Finally, I do not see anything pointing to a decrease in human rights. There are indeed extremist parties and there was a european move towards the right end of the spectrum. However, (except for Greece) tend those parties to focus on an anti-EU front rather than focussing on nationalist state against their neighbours. Also, I would like to point out the election of Hollande as president and the increasing popularity of the socialist party in the Netherlands (as opposed to Wilders populist, anti-muslim party).
A less integrated European Union is a very possible outcome in the near future, however it is not one that will combat its neighbours and ignore the established human rights. |
|
|
| Resonance Canada. June 16 2012 03:24. Posts 106 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 01:02 Tippecanoe wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 23:28 Resonance wrote:
On June 15 2012 22:44 Felnarion wrote:
On June 15 2012 22:03 Resonance wrote:
On June 15 2012 18:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:31 RavenLoud wrote:
On June 14 2012 20:11 DarKcS wrote:
I enjoy watching dictators get the finger.
In this case, however, the people are actually behind their dictators. The Chinese aren't really an expansionist or aggressive people (no need to bring up things that happened half a century ago to try to make China look bad, it has been 30 years since the last time China went to war. Try counting how many wars the US has been into since then..), but they are very sensitive to territories they consider historically theirs. In fact, if the CCP shows weakness when it comes to these kinds of things, they would get lots of criticism from the inside.
See ideologies like yours are so faulty that it it shames me that you're Canadian... China ransacking Tibet and calling its own while killing monks/protesters by the hundreds seems rather aggressive... China is no walk in the park, and although the US has been rather audacious with its foreign policy (which most people disagree with) it at least adheres to most human rights, this is where China actually fails as a government.
This mention of "aggressive" behaviour from China towards Tibet is completely false. An agreement was signed in 1950 between China and the Dalai at the time, but the Dalai left and repudiated it. What happened after was the Great Leap forward, so lots of Chinese people, Tibetan and otherwise, died. Then came social and structural reforms. This made it so the Tibetans no longer followed the Dalai Lama around eating his shit because they thought it was holy.
On June 15 2012 18:42 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On June 15 2012 16:53 Elegy wrote:
On June 15 2012 16:35 Resonance wrote:
On June 15 2012 11:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On June 15 2012 11:20 oldgregg wrote:
you can't criticise China here unless you're also prepared to criticise America for all of it's meddling. Both of them are just doing what's in their own best interests
yeah bullshit 1. the two arent connected so you dont have to criticize both to criticize one. 2. whenever people who criticize the US but never criticize anyone else and are called on it, they use number 1 as a defense. this has happened approximately a hundred billion times in the history of people criticizing the US. so no, that shit aint gonna fly.
You do have to criticize both when you're criticizing one for a certain project or military move. In the case of criticizing America, it's because they have "intervened" so many times in places they do not need to. China will stake its claim on anything it feels belongs to them, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. The US will flex its "muscles" whenever it is given a chance to. Stepping up presence in an area that is so far from the US mainland will mean a great reduction of protection for the US. It's a strategically unsound decision; furthermore, they have no reason to defend that area. tl;dr: The US needs to just back off and let whatever happens happen.
.. No. Carrier groups are made especially for these occurances, there is no "great reduction" in protection for the US, a statement which makes no sense lol.
Haha Elegy it's great to see you around these parts! But seriously, even if it is any reduction in protection, who the hell is even able to cross the ocean to get to us? On top of that, how would they stand a chance at all against the Navy assuming they could? Or the airforce. No landing will be possible so the Army can just chill. We just need to send a fleet to these contested waters for a couple weeks, and they'll all shut up right away.
On June 15 2012 17:53 Resonance wrote:
On June 15 2012 16:53 Elegy wrote:
On June 15 2012 16:35 Resonance wrote:
On June 15 2012 11:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On June 15 2012 11:20 oldgregg wrote:
you can't criticise China here unless you're also prepared to criticise America for all of it's meddling. Both of them are just doing what's in their own best interests
yeah bullshit 1. the two arent connected so you dont have to criticize both to criticize one. 2. whenever people who criticize the US but never criticize anyone else and are called on it, they use number 1 as a defense. this has happened approximately a hundred billion times in the history of people criticizing the US. so no, that shit aint gonna fly.
You do have to criticize both when you're criticizing one for a certain project or military move. In the case of criticizing America, it's because they have "intervened" so many times in places they do not need to. China will stake its claim on anything it feels belongs to them, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. The US will flex its "muscles" whenever it is given a chance to. Stepping up presence in an area that is so far from the US mainland will mean a great reduction of protection for the US. It's a strategically unsound decision; furthermore, they have no reason to defend that area. tl;dr: The US needs to just back off and let whatever happens happen.
.. No. Carrier groups are made especially for these occurances, there is no "great reduction" in protection for the US, a statement which makes no sense lol.
They'll have carrier groups, but the US intends to increase presence, which means that the US plans to, either, shift their current carriers from other locations(which may be of more importance to them) or shift them away from home. I'm really not seeing why you don't understand that concept. Carriers are comprised of Navy and Air forces, but moving them far from the US means there will be a "great reduction" of troops. Unlike in Stracraft, you don't send a carrier out with only a handful of troops on board. Most carriers have at least a crew of 700 men/women. Increasing presence would mean sending more than just one carrier.
A supercarrier has a complement of over 5,000 between crewmen and airmen. More importantly, you don't realize that carriers don't travel alone. You forget that carriers lead a CVBG, which is a whole fleet of American warships headed by the supercarrier. We have many of such fleets. One of them alone could overwhelm any other navy in the world. Two would be infernal overkill. Yes, we would be sending an overwhelmingly powerful force with just one fleet, so don't worry. We don't need to send it for a long time either. A week or two, the Chinese shut up, and we send the fleet back to its home station. Once those DDG-1000 stealth destroyers come into service... may God have mercy on our enemies.
I address that they don't travel alone in the last bit of the sentence, which I highly doubt you read after "strategically unsound" because you think I'm an idiot. Bolstering presence in an area that they really don't need to be in is strategically unsound. Sending these ships to the other side of the world is completely irrelevant to their homeland security. America thinks itself high and mighty in the seas, but traveling that far out away from from means and increased likelihood that, in the even of war, their supply lanes will be intercepted. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if your navy is good. You'll be fighting in completely hostile territory where you can be completely surrounded. So, saying may god have mercy on our enemies is just dumb when you are so far out of position it makes no sense. For the record, America's ties may appear strong with the southern-Asian countries, but they don't really want America there either. The Japanese have, in the past mentioned their displeasure of having such a strong American presence near them. It's clear that if anything should happen, it would definitely not favour the American fleets. End note: Chinese people don't shut up. If it is something they want, then they will do it. While I don't think they deserve that territory, rest assured, they either don't care about it enough to do anything, or they'll do whatever it takes to get it.
Mostly nonsense. A fleet is sufficient to have a presence worth considering and suicide to attack, which won't happen anyone, everyone knows that. War between China and the US is madness for both countries, both in lives lost and economic wrecking. Also, while the Japanese, in some surveys, will say that they would prefer a reduction in US bases, an overwhelming majority absolutely enjoy, agree, and support the US presence and agreements for the defense of Japan. It's a partnership over 3/4 the countries embraces fully. To say that Japan does not support the US in such matters is baseless, and its wrong. The discrepancy comes from the same place all such discrepancies come from; ignorance. The Japanese have to realize that, in order to enjoy such protection, they must allow bases.
You may find it to be nonsense, but when thought about carefully, the Chinese are fiercely patriotic and will do anything they deem will improve their country. They can have protection from multiple sources. If you aren't ignorant then you'd know that China is in no rush to invade Japan, that Russia is also capable of providing protection as well. So to say that the Japanese NEED the American protection is completely outrageous. ANY battles over land by the Americans in that region will result in their decisive defeat.For the record, China would win a war of attrition against America, that's just something that should go without saying.
Either way, that's off topic. When countries start trying to flex their muscles and claim things they weren't making a big deal about before; you have to flex back. If you don't, they're like children, they keep trying to see what else they can take before it causes a real problem, at which point, its too late to go back. Apologies in advance that the US has to do it, but in almost every major conflict to date, it got out of hand because crazy leaders/countries were allowed to just annex things and no one stopped them untili it was too late.
Then it's already too late based on what you have said. China has, over the years, taken up a few territories. Mainly the island of Taiwan and Tibet. While I completely agree that both do belong to China, I feel that they both fall under the category of, "something we only kind of want." Furthermore, I've made the point that America really is in no position to be flexing its muscles. If anything, China is flexing, while America is dick measuring. The difference being, China is ready for action(because they are right next to the action), while America is trying to show off its military might.
How would the chinese go about defeating the us in a conventional war? Especially when we double their gdp, spend 6x more on our military spending, and already have experienced soldiers from the past wars in iraq afghanistan and iraq again. The US also has by far the best navy and air force, and by far the best everything else besides main battle tank(which could be argued between the top 3 countries USA, Germany, and the UK. Not china.) Sure china has more civilians, but only out number us 2-1 with soldiers. Either way china wouldn't be fighting just the US but the entire world. We would rip up our T-bills and owe them nothing and export our labor to india after we destroy them. A war with US is the dumbest thing china could do. Also the Japanese do need US protection, because after we nuked them in WW2 and they signed the unconditional surrender we told them they could never again have a military. The only thing they have now is a defensive force. So yes they do need US protection and we are obligated to help them because of the pact we have.
I might not be a war expert, but I at least know that looking only at nominal GDP is much more useless than the purchasing power. While China does lack there, you do forget that a war with the US does not mean war with the world. You're looking at this blindly and saying that the US would be backed by every country on Earth. Wars kind of need to go through the UN, so Russia would most likely just veto the war. There would be, as a result, no united front worked out by the UN.
Since China has such a large population 4:1, it can afford to lose the 2:1 advantage it has in soldiers as it can readily enlist more soldiers. That being completely off-topic, the US sending little over half of its naval fleet does not signal strength. It signals indecision. If you want to commit, send more, if you just want to keep peace, have half of your fleet there. The US is in a position where sending more is just pointless and taking away only benefits them
On June 16 2012 01:12 Felnarion wrote:
That's ridiculous conjecture. There are so many factors to consider; to say "China would win a war of attrition" shows the blindness with which you're looking at the topic.
I never said Japan needed protection, I said that the citizens enjoy the protection afforded by the US. Further, I find it unlikely Russia would/could do much to help Japan in the event that China became aggressive. That's off-topic, but whatever. THe point is this. A small show of force is necessary to keep China from randomly annexing things. Just a small one. China has no no no no no interest in invading anything, lest they completely demolish themselves and the world, because your "China would win a war of attrition" is meaningless. "Win" would be meaningless. Both countries would be smoldering ruins with huge civilian casualties, and lets not pretend like the rest of the world doesn't jump in and take sides. Best case scenario for China is they win with hundreds of millions of deaths, no economy, no trading partners, and a few extra annexed islands. They wouldn't do it.
And so what if it is too late? What's the alternative, just give up the world? Welcome our Chinese overlords! It has to be done at some point.
In a war that is right next to the country of China, I'd gladly say any day that they have the advantage of being able to win a war of attrition.
Best case scenario does not really present itself that way. Taking in to consideration sides being taken, people will want to side with the country that doesn't currently have a slightly broken economy.
It is true that China probably won't act, but I have said and will say that this is removing American resources from where it can be better used. |
| | I play protoss because it's imbalanced. :D |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
