Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (61 users)
Active: 5711 users | |
|
| Felnarion June 15 2012 22:44. Posts 362 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:03 Resonance wrote:
Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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.
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. |
|
|
| XenOmega Canada. June 15 2012 23:02. Posts 1026 | Profile Blog # |
One thing though, and not really expert on military so correct me if I am wrong...
In the past, even 'better' armies lost because of inexperience of their leaders.
So I was wondering, since alot of people are claiming a superiority of US navy (and I dare not say its wrong!). Can we say that because there haven't been any major naval conflict in the past years, that the advantage is basically only 'theoretical' in the sense that on paper, their armament is superior, their tactics are superior, their air force is stronger, etc? But, we can't grant the US navy experience superiority in the sense that although the admirals and captains are extremely knowledgeable (they probably have been formed at the best academies, know the theories of war, have been taught how to react to certain situations, etc.), they haven't faced any real threat on sea?
...
Or maybe I read too much fantasies -.- and experience isn't all that important in modern warfare. |
|
|
| Felnarion June 15 2012 23:16. Posts 362 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 23:02 XenOmega wrote:
One thing though, and not really expert on military so correct me if I am wrong...
In the past, even 'better' armies lost because of inexperience of their leaders.
So I was wondering, since alot of people are claiming a superiority of US navy (and I dare not say its wrong!). Can we say that because there haven't been any major naval conflict in the past years, that the advantage is basically only 'theoretical' in the sense that on paper, their armament is superior, their tactics are superior, their air force is stronger, etc? But, we can't grant the US navy experience superiority in the sense that although the admirals and captains are extremely knowledgeable (they probably have been formed at the best academies, know the theories of war, have been taught how to react to certain situations, etc.), they haven't faced any real threat on sea?
...
Or maybe I read too much fantasies -.- and experience isn't all that important in modern warfare.
No, you're absolutely correct, it definitely has happened before. But the same would also be true of any other navy. So while the advantages you listed would definitely be overcome, at least partially if not wholly by real experience...No one really has that experience anymore. So the advantages you list are the next best thing. |
|
|
| Resonance Canada. June 15 2012 23:28. Posts 106 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:44 Felnarion wrote:
Show nested quote +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. |
| | I play protoss because it's imbalanced. :D |
|
|
| Roflhaxx Norway. June 15 2012 23:36. Posts 1011 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 10:47 Brutaxilos wrote:
I understand the argument why China shouldn't claim the area and I agree with it, however many people are seriously being downright rude and racist. If you guys checked out the comments on that YouTube video you can probably understand what I'm saying. Also, what is the mentality of representing China with a panda rather than a human being? Seems ridiculous and blatantly derogatory in my opinion.
Wow how has anyone been racist? Is talking about China as a nation racist? No it's obviously not, that's like saying that if you hate on usa you are suddenly a racist that hates white people. :| I bet you call people hating on Israel for anti-semites amirite? |
| | A game where the first thing you do is scout with a “worker”. Does that make any sense? Who scouts with a “worker”? That’s like sending out the janitor to perform recon, what general would do that? Retarded game. |
|
|
| Inertia_EU United Kingdom. June 15 2012 23:53. Posts 510 | Profile # |
Hahaha, Americans.
You guys...Aw. |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 15 2012 23:57. Posts 1080 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 18:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Show nested quote +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. All in all, this topic isn't about the comparing US and China with a "who did worse shit" list, it's discussing the potential political and military action that may occur in that region. Try and stay on topic.
What ideology? I only stated facts that are often forgotten. Anyway, it's not like we Canadians cared for "human rights" when we took our lands from the Natives.
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.
Well don't lecture others on what it means to be Canadian or how to stay on topic too, maybe some people will see more irony in it than you would like. |
|
|
| andrewlt United States. June 16 2012 00:09. Posts 3131 | Profile # |
I'm going to give my perspective as a third generation Chinese immigrant to the Philippines who has since moved to the US.
I don't think all the Western people here understand what is going on in Asia. China was the old imperialist/colonial power in the region before European nations came. They're trying to reassert their dominance by bullying the other nations. But I think people are underestimating the other Asian nations. Vietnam, for example, has continually broken free of Chinese dominance. They rarely stay cowed for long. Indonesia and the Philippines have sizable populations as well and have been some of the best performing economies of the last decade after decades of corruption. India is behind China in development but has a comparable population and has always been a rival. Malaysia and Thailand are a bit more developed than many Western people realize.
China is not comparable to the US at all. During his reign, Mao tried to destroy Confucian principles, which provide the basis for much of China's moral compass. It's the equivalent to the Bible plus the philosophies of ancient Greece and Roman for Western civilization. That was combined with the rapid switch to a dictatorial capitalist system in the 1980s. The result is a generation of people (30-60 years old or so) with pretty much no ethics and barely any common courtesy.
There's a significant amount of them still emigrating to Southeast Asia right now. The second generation and above members of the Chinese community in those countries pretty much despise them. Even the most ardent communist sympathizers who have visited China ended up being disappointed in them. It was pretty funny hearing my grandparents and some family friends talked about how much China has improved their infrastructure but lamenting that the people there are really rude and just terrible. |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 00:09. Posts 1080 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 21:49 Ramong wrote:
All this about China using historical texts to lay claim to various islands and seas is just stupid.
If you could use historical territory like that as a claim then Europe would have had a more than 2 world wars.
Europe is littered with territory that have had various nations own it. Austria and Hungary lost a lot of land after ww1 but you don't see Hungary try to subjugate Slovakia or Croatia. Same for Germany, lost a lot of land to Poland and Russia (Koenigsberg) and Denmark have lost a lot to Sweden, Norway etc. But we don't try to start a small war over this.
Basically the Chinese government need to behave like rational adults.
It feels like they just want an excuse to take as much territory they can.
I'm not sure if all of Eastern Europe agree with you though, seems like WW2 happened yesterday for some people in these countries.
Besides, it's often not very helpful when you try to understand China using western concepts. There's too much irony in such criticism anyway. Big countries will take advantage of smaller ones, fact of life.
|
|
|
| hitthat Poland. June 16 2012 00:09. Posts 1484 | Profile # |
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 |
| | T- Fantasy, Sea, Leta, FBH ; Z- Zero, Great, Hyuk, Hydra...kind of ; P- Bisu, Kal /// Heroes of the past and scum of the present: Hwasin, go.go ///Legacy: BOXER OOV MISTRZZZ MIDAS |
|
|
| Kontys Finland. June 16 2012 00:18. Posts 529 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 11:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +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.
I'll just add that I like the USA. Counter arguments are invalid. And I think this is a perfectly reasonable way for any citizen of the free world to approach the topic.
The USA also has an excellent track-record of being the good guys, especially when compared to the past imperial or quasi-imperial powers. Yeah, it's not all roses and caramel when you have a world to rule over (and sometimes elect some really dumb arses to the oval office), but hey, atleast it's them instead of the nazis or the russkies. Or god forbid some total freaks from the un-enlightened world. |
| | Next broadcast of European WCS: Season 2 TBA. |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 00:20. Posts 1080 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:09 hitthat wrote:
Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
| Ramong Denmark. June 16 2012 00:34. Posts 959 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
Show nested quote +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 learnLast edit: 2012-06-16 00:34:49 |
| |
|
| MDMA_ Canada. June 16 2012 00:38. Posts 174 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 00:20 RavenLoud wrote:
Show nested quote +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. |
|
|
| reincremate Canada. June 16 2012 00:45. Posts 1702 | Profile Blog # |
| No one has territorial rights to anything, since it's all arbitrary to begin with. |
|
|
| MDMA_ Canada. June 16 2012 00:50. Posts 174 | 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
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. |
|
|
| reincremate Canada. June 16 2012 00:57. Posts 1702 | Profile Blog # |
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.
Racist diatribes are acceptable as long as they're backed up by plenty of anecdotal evidence. |
|
|
 Tippecanoe United States. June 16 2012 01:02. Posts 342 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 23:28 Resonance wrote:
Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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. |
|
|
| Felnarion June 16 2012 01:12. Posts 362 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 23:28 Resonance wrote:
Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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.
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. |
|
|
| mahO France. June 16 2012 01:30. Posts 272 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 13:07 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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? |
|
|
| 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
