China tells U.S. to shut up....

[Yahoshua]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/...itain_china_us

[August]

"It's better for the U.S. to shut up," Sha said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."

Better for who exactly?

[gabeeg]

Unless there is a diplomatic or cultural miracle, our children (if not ourselves) are going to have a real problem on thier hands. I do not trust the Chinese government, my only hope is that the Chinese people will not allow any government behavior that is bad for business.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Better for everyone, probably.

I positively wince whenever I hear about the US whining about another nation's militarization. It is utterly hypocritical.

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"

Or perhaps China's building a military to subvert a people (Taiwan) against their will under the mainland (China). China still hasn't explained why they need 700 SRBM's pointed across the Taiwan Strait at civilians. Not exactly a defensive posture.

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'.

[STEED]

WW3, America Vs China on 20-- AD :hmm:

China is coming up fast as a new super power on the scene.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by STEED

WW3, America Vs China on 20-- AD :hmm:

China is coming up fast as a new super power on the scene.

Not that fast. The things that will eventually slow China down is the fact that they have huge pollution problems, huge population problems, poor disease control, and a massive piracy problem. Plus their technology modernization for their military is largely based on copying and reverse engineering methods. Hard to truly master technologies like that. Certainly can't build a technological infrastructure based on that. And they've been largely dependant on Russia to get a step ahead. Take a look at most of the programs in China's military modernization. They're mostly based on designs from the 70's and 80's. And these are new things like J-10 (based loosely on Israeli Lavi from 80's). And China still has not produced a viable nuclear submarine of credible design.

I have no doubt they're making gains. But they show no signs of actually catching up anytime soon. Though alot of potential exists for improvement, there is alot of potential for impediments to slow progress. I believe these things will catch up with China within 10 years or so.

[Captain Nemo]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Not that fast. The things that will eventually slow China down is the fact that they have huge pollution problems, huge population problems, poor disease control, and a massive piracy problem. Plus their technology modernization for their military is largely based on copying and reverse engineering methods. Hard to truly master technologies like that. Certainly can't build a technological infrastructure based on that. And they've been largely dependant on Russia to get a step ahead. Take a look at most of the programs in China's military modernization. They're mostly based on designs from the 70's and 80's. And these are new things like J-10 (based loosely on Israeli Lavi from 80's). And China still has not produced a viable nuclear submarine of credible design.

I have no doubt they're making gains. But they show no signs of actually catching up anytime soon. Though alot of potential exists for improvement, there is alot of potential for impediments to slow progress. I believe these things will catch up with China within 10 years or so.

I don't think you should underestimate the Chinese. They might not match the USA militarily but economically they are coming up fast. It wouldn't surprise me if within the next 5-10 years they become a member of the top industrialised nations making the G8 the G9.

With regard to pollution, I think the USA does badly on this front by contributing 33% of the worlds CO2 emissions and the US Federal government seems to be dragging it's feet on combating the problem.

Nemo

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'.

With such an extremely bad record of politics in the ME, I would be careful to be the the one saying so. This and a record of stupid wars, fought for wrong reasons and often in wrong ways, in principle is the reason for which I criticise Bush in special and the ME policy of America since a longer while in general: to have destroyed the moral ground from which the US could rightfully pontificate other nations about why they should remain to be militarily "weak" and vulnerable to the US. Not that China is the latter anymore.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

With such an extremely bad record of politics in the ME, I would be careful to be the the one saying so. This and a record of stupid wars, fought for wrong reasons and often in wrong ways, in principle is the reason for which I criticise Bush in special and the ME policy of America since a longer while in general: to have destroyed the moral ground from which the US could rightfully pontificate other nations about why they should remain to be militarily "weak" and vulnerable to the US. Not that China is the latter anymore.

I guess you forgot that Saddam violated every UN resolution, kicked out weapons inspectors, and was paying the families of Palestinian terrorists $10,000 USD for every suicide attack in Israel.

A free and prosperous Taiwan is not a good comparison to Saddam's dictatorship.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I guess you forgot that Saddam violated every UN resolution, kicked out weapons inspectors, and was paying the families of Palestinian terrorists $10,000 USD for every suicide attack in Israel.

Well, that really was not kind, wasn't it? It compares to today's problems with Iraq and future blowbacks caused by the Iraq desaster like a small flie compares to a raging bull. you have solved the problem of saddam - by replacing it with a problem innumerably more threatening, potent, and complex. Not clever.

No one knows if there will ever be a war about Taiwan. We had tens of thousands of weapons aiming at the enemy during the cold war - but no war. Intimidating and bluffing and threatening is part of the game.

BTW, Hezbullah will violate the new resolution, too. Israel has ignored resolutions as well. Neither the Us nor the UN nor the EU nor NATO will enforce the resolution this time. What now? Doing like in Iraq 2003?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Or perhaps China's building a military to subvert a people (Taiwan) against their will under the mainland (China).

1) The US already has a military it uses to subvert and attack any other nation, anywhere in the world, it doesn't like.

China still hasn't explained why they need 700 SRBM's pointed across the Taiwan Strait at civilians. Not exactly a defensive posture.

2) Boo-hoo. In the greater system of things, unless those 700 SRBMs are armed with NBC warheads, 700 SRBMs is nothing. America's military can put together a comparable battery of warheads versus almost any target in the world in a very short time. As one of the countless tactics they could use, since a B-52 can carry about 20 cruise missiles, a mere 35 of them (3 squadrons worth) could carry the same 700 500kg warhead attack capability. Counting planning time, I still don't see them needing more than a day or so to do so. Wow ... offensive!
3) The Chinese hardly makes it a secret they want Taiwan back. Hell, if those 700 missiles force the Taiwanese to capitulate without a shot being fired, that would be the highest victory, no?

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'.

America constantly flexing its military muscles ain't a greatly reassuring thought for me either.

Regarding that tangential debate that's dominating the thread now, I'd just point out briefly that it is impossible to prove motive, short of using brain scans which we don't have the tech for and which will be a major invasion of privacy. Even if you directly bribed me in plain sight of the world, there is no way anyone can really prove your bribe is what motivated me to do something that just benefits to benefit you. All you can do is show that there is a motive, and that's generally considered adequate and in fact has to be due to limitations in our ability to acquire such knowledge.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

1) The US already has a military it uses to subvert and attack any other nation, anywhere in the world, it doesn't like.

The USA does not go around threatening and attacking nations of the world for no reason. Many entities around the world (Not just Bush) considered Saddam a threat, and openly discussed removing him from power. Iran at some point may require military operations against it. The USA uses deterrence against China, but does not overtly attack or try to subvert it as a whole. And not the way China does to Taiwan civilians. You are grossly misrepresenting U.S. actions and responses.

2) Boo-hoo. In the greater system of things, unless those 700 SRBMs are armed with NBC warheads, 700 SRBMs is nothing. America's military can put together a comparable battery of warheads versus almost any target in the world in a very short time. As one of the countless tactics they could use, since a B-52 can carry about 20 cruise missiles, a mere 35 of them (3 squadrons worth) could carry the same 700 500kg warhead attack capability. Counting planning time, I still don't see them needing more than a day or so to do so. Wow ... offensive!
3) The Chinese hardly makes it a secret they want Taiwan back. Hell, if those 700 missiles force the Taiwanese to capitulate without a shot being fired, that would be the highest victory, no?

All these U.S. systems are for deterrence. Give me one example where they are used as a tool for holding nations hostage....just for the heck of it. When it comes to conventional capabilities, we have used that to remove Saddam from power. True. Saddam was a dictator that tortured his own people, ran a terrorist training camp out of Salman Pak, paid terrorist families money to kill civilians in Israel, trashed multiple UN resolutions he agreed to to stop GW1, and was believed to be building a WMD capability (Believed by British intel, Russia, Germany, American Democrats, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, al Gore, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, etc.). But of course, it's just easier (and apparently alot of fun) to focus the blame on Bush rather than see it for what it is.

The Taiwanese aren't going to capitulate because 700 SRBM's are pointed at it. I really wonder if you "I hate Bush"..."I hate America" types would just stand there and passively watch China launch these missiles at Taiwanese civilians. I'm convinced, the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" types would be silent.

All you can do is show that there is a motive, and that's generally considered adequate and in fact has to be due to limitations in our ability to acquire such knowledge.

OK. But then Bill Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Hans Blix, German intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, all had the same motive as Bush. If Bush is a liar, they are too.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Also to me a lie is a lie

Hey, Brad. Me too. But you haven't proven that Bush lied about anything. Nor has the New York Times. Nor has the New Republic. Nor has the peanut gallery at the DNC. Just saying "Bush lied" doesn't suffice. Leveling a charege like that is serious, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

Mr. Subman - If you look at China's military, you definitely get a feel for their objectives. They want to subvert Taiwan, and find a way to keep the USA from coming to the rescue. If China was a peaceful country, they would just leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is free, independant, a threat to nobody, has a world class economy, and is happy to govern itself. The so called human rights lovers of course are silent to China's coming aggression.

[bradclark1]

Some of this is looney sites but the information they put out is common knowledge.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8709.htm

http://www.time.com/time/election200...699348,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...5_intel06.html

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html Odd site but it's list is right.

=

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The USA does not go around threatening and attacking nations of the world for no reason.

Oh? Technically this statement is correct, but that's mostly because the world is so interlinked that very few things can happen that don't affect your country at all, thus you almost always can find some small reason.

Many entities around the world (Not just Bush) considered Saddam a threat, and openly discussed removing him from power.

Many, but apparently not enough to get the resolution passed. Compare that to Gulf War I and you can see the huge difference. Not many people like Saddam Hussein, but apparently not that many people figure to invade either.

Iran at some point may require military operations against it.

Here we go again. America plans to attack yet another nation it does not like.

The USA uses deterrence against China, but does not overtly attack or try to subvert it as a whole. And not the way China does to Taiwan civilians. You are grossly misrepresenting U.S. actions and responses.

You see, the whole problem with the US military is the definition of "deterrence". Most nations tend to use "deterrence" to mean "deterring against an attack on my national integrity."

The US uses "deterrence" to mean "deterring anything that bothers me."

All these U.S. systems are for deterrence. Give me one example where they are used as a tool for holding nations hostage....just for the heck of it.

Amazing, so America's beefs are genuine, but anybody elses isn't.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that crisis, the US used its military power to enforce a blockade to subvert two other nations from establishing a deterrent to America, who freely bases missiles in IIRC Turkey. You might whine that national security is involved, but it is hypocritical to say your enemy is not allowed to deploy SRBMs in nations close to you when you can.

When it comes to conventional capabilities, we have used that to remove Saddam from power. True. Saddam was a dictator that tortured his own people, ran a terrorist training camp out of Salman Pak, paid terrorist families money to kill civilians in Israel, trashed multiple UN resolutions he agreed to to stop GW1, and was believed to be building a WMD capability (Believed by British intel, Russia, Germany, American Democrats, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, al Gore, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, etc.). But of course, it's just easier (and apparently alot of fun) to focus the blame on Bush rather than see it for what it is.

Unlike Bush and America, however, not that many of them (except for Brits) feel that the evidence warrants an attack. Many people certainly thought there was a possibility, and that's certainly OK. The job of intelligence services, after all, is to look for possibilities. If there is a shred of a chance that Iraq can build a nuclear weapon, they are obliged to report the possibility. The national leadership is a bit different.

Not that many of them are being accused of making things up either. There is a difference between citing "coulds" and "mays" and "concluding Iraq had an active nuclear program and a huge stockpile of unconventional weapons.."

There is also a difference between saying Iraq has not accepted the disarmament (Blix), which is perfectly reasonable - no nation likes to be disarmed. Furthermore, motives can only be inferred and guessed at. Blix of course also points out he can't really find anything. He can certainly point out discrepancies, and he's not lying to do so, yet in the end he can't find anything.

Ultimately, it would seem only the United States and Britain decides to turn this possibility into a certainty so they can use it for casus belli, thus embarassing themselves as they leap in and find nothing.

When you bust into someone's house to do a search, you'd better be able to find something.

The Taiwanese aren't going to capitulate because 700 SRBM's are pointed at it. I really wonder if you "I hate Bush"..."I hate America" types would just stand there and passively watch China launch these missiles at Taiwanese civilians. I'm convinced, the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" types would be silent.

I don't hate America, though I am more than aware of the footprint their military makes on the world. I'd admit that my evaluation from the evidence so far is that Bush should at least have been investigated Clinton-style, very deeply.

Mr. Subman - If you look at China's military, you definitely get a feel for their objectives. They want to subvert Taiwan,

No doubt - since they think Taiwan belongs to them. America actually kinds of admits this, but somehow feels a need to support them.

and find a way to keep the USA from coming to the rescue.

That goes hand in hand with Part 1. Delete "rescue", insert "intervention".

If China was a peaceful country, they would just leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is free, independant, a threat to nobody, has a world class economy, and is happy to govern itself. The so called human rights lovers of course are silent to China's coming aggression.

You mean, their efforts to recover their own. By that standard, when the US had the Confederate succession, maybe they should have stood there.