What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?

[LoneWolf]

And allowing the NK's to take over SK is NOT the same as conceding Chinese dominanace in the region. As Gepap (God, I never thought I would praise Gepap) points out so well, the Chinese do not even control the NK's, let alone anyone else.

[Drake Tungsten]

Chronological age Drake is not a guarantee of maturity, as your behavior shows.

Such a piece is NOT FACT, but theory.

The Chinese actions and statements cited in those pieces are facts and, as Q Cubed stated, these events clearly indicate China's intention to attempt to return to a hegemonic position in East Asia.

the use of a Liberal education is to gain the ability to make these annalysis on your own...

I do have my own analysis. I don't particularly agree with the Bernstein and Munro piece. I'm in more agreement with Ross, but there are still differences. I only posted those articles because I feel they provide a good general overview of the geo-political implications of China's rise, not because I want to pass them off as my own ideas.

The most interesting part about the two articles is that, while they are in many ways opposing viewpoints, both pieces accept the basic fact that China has some sort of long-term strategic plan. You're the only person I've ever talked to who seems to believe otherwise, which is why I wondered if you might not be "out of your element." It's just bewildering to me that you would continue to deny the existence of a Chinese strategic plan, when every major power on Earth has one.

China is a diplomatic midget for most of the world

Not true at all. China has considerable diplomatic weight when they decide to throw it around. Just because they choose their battles carefully doesn't mean that they are weak.

so I do fail to see any master plan, and the status of China's leadership at this point also makes the idea of some grand plan sort of ridiculous: the Chinese changed economic policy 180% just 30 years ago, and yet some great master plan was in place?

You're the one being ridiculous. Why would the current plan have to have been in place during Mao's time? You do know that plans change when leadership does, don't you? China embarked on a completely new course after Deng took power; the current plan took shape under him and is being shaped by his successors.

[LoneWolf]

And allowing the NK's to take over SK is NOT the same as conceding Chinese dominanace in the region. As Gepap (God, I never thought I would praise Gepap) points out so well, the Chinese do not even control the NK's, let alone anyone else

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, our "stated policy" can be changed if it is no longer in our interests.

It could be, sure. It's a rather old and entrenched policy, however, so it won't be easy to reverse, if it is indeed in our national interests to do so.

[LoneWolf]

Sorry, double post.

[LoneWolf]

Well, that's my point. It's old and based on the Cold War situation. It's hard to aknowledge the brutal reality of change, but just what the Hey do we care about SK anymore, anyway?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And 38 of those subs are Romeo types "built using Soviet designs that were based on the German Type-21 U- boat of 1944. The actual number of operable Romeo-class units is difficult to assess, since none of these submarines spends more than a few days at sea each year, and because of the general shortage of trained crews.

16 are Ming type subs, an upgraded Romeo that is still obsolete. (A perfect definition of Ming )

The long term plan is to have more Mings. That's a really great strategic plan, build more obsolete subs.

Actually, those diesel electric boats running on electrics only can be practically impossible to detect unless by luck you fly right over them with a MAD. They don't have bluewater endurance, but if you're looking at the ability to make people nervous about ****ing with shipping, they've got a lot of bang for the buck. And they're sure as hell cheaper to operate than the required ASW assets to shut them down would be.

[Tingkai]

So let's sum up what Drake has said about China's grand strategic plans.








Nothing.

[Drake Tungsten]

So let's sum up what Drake has said about China's grand strategic plans.

Nothing.

I didn't think you could read. This just confirms it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Oh, so now you're saying that China's plan is to make Japan its client state. Didn't you say something about how that is an absurb scenario?

wrong! having china desire to acheive hegemony no more makes it want to have japan as a client state as america's hegemony makes canada, germany, britain, france, or italy its client state.

The definition of hegemony is the control or dominating influence of one country over a group of other countries.

The definition of a client state is a country that depends on another power militarily, economically, politicall.

Therefore, a country that is under hegemonic control is a client state.


As a result, Drake's statements are contradictory.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, those diesel electric boats running on electrics only can be practically impossible to detect unless by luck you fly right over them with a MAD. They don't have bluewater endurance, but if you're looking at the ability to make people nervous about ****ing with shipping, they've got a lot of bang for the buck. And they're sure as hell cheaper to operate than the required ASW assets to shut them down would be.

Edit (that sounds logical), assuming there are trained crews and assuming that they are as quiet as modern diesel-electrics subs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Therefore, a country that is under hegemonic control is a client state.

That is completely and utterly false. Wasn't even a good attempt.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Therefore, a country that is under hegemonic control is a client state.

That is completely and utterly false. Wasn't even a good attempt.

Your mentor Fez would be proud of you. You certainly have his trolling style down pat.

Let me know when you have something interesting or meaningful to add to this discussion.

[Drake Tungsten]

Let me know when you have something interesting or meaningful to add to this discussion.

I think I'll let you go first.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Don't be silly. Starting the draft would be a sure way for Bush to lose the elections, and the Dems to sweep Congress.

Is that why some of the Dems were suggesting the draft be reinstated?