Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well I do have to thank you for the informative posts though. It was enlightening. I do have to ask though how much serious opposition is there to removing the embargo within the EU?

In Sweden, a land where public attitudes to weapons exports have been generally hostile (which is ironic, because weapons exports were crucial to our Cold War neutrality, which was popular), there doesn't seem to be much resistance. What I've seen is the hard left reiterating its opposition to arms sales of any kind, and some rightwingers complaining about "abandoning" Taiwain. Both the governing socdems and the leading oppositional party are pro.

[Last Conformist]

@LOTM: Care to explain exactly which part of GePap's

The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.

you deny?

Personally, I can't think why America shouldn't try to maintain its position as top dog, nor why it shouldn't try and convince Europe that's the best possible world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

That is an interesting argument.

Now, if China, a rising power, went to war to gain control of Taiwan, a place they see as rightfully theirs, they'd be following in the footsteps of Great Britain, the US, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Assyrians and alot of other people. Would you therefore think that that, too, is therefore OK?

NO, the article posted says nothing about invading Taiwan, it speaks about China seeking to modernize its Navy and make it a working blue water navy. China has a lot of reasons, regardless of Taiwan, to have a strong Navy as its exports and imports climb astronomically.

Next time, read the article, it will improve your accuracy.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, its easy enough to know Chinese history.

Thought, of course, the many westerners in China, like you or mindseye, could go ahead and post things about general Chinese feelings, if you think people outside of the Middle Kingdom are unable to see inside it. Then of course, how are you guys able to pierce throught the veil of Chinese secrecy?

Only so far. But people are people. How they act, what they say, what they do can say a lot about what they are thinking or feeling. The resounding message is that China is a very insecure country.

Chinese history isn't very helpful in this situation. China has never been a world power. When it was a major power in Asia, it required all its neighbors to be vassals and pay "protection" fees.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@LOTM: Care to explain exactly which part of GePap's

The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.

you deny?

Personally, I can't think why America shouldn't try to maintain its position as top dog, nor why it shouldn't try and convince Europe that's the best possible world.

I'd rather their be no top dog, but then what will people complain about?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, the article posted says nothing about invading Taiwan, it speaks about China seeking to modernize its Navy and make it a working blue water navy. China has a lot of reasons, regardless of Taiwan, to have a strong Navy as its exports and imports climb astronomically.

Next time, read the article, it will improve your accuracy.

I suppose it's ironic that you should tell me to read better after patently not having got the point of the post you were responding to.

You were saying that if China built a navy to protect their interests, they'd go in the footsteps of the US and God knows who else. I pointed out that the same can be said of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Sensible people would infer that whether something's been done before isn't much relevant to whether it's acceptable or welcome today.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DaShi


I'd rather their be no top dog, but then what will people complain about?

History would seem to suggest that multipolarity isn't conducive to stability or peace, so I suspect there'd be plenty to complain about.

Be that as it may. You didn't give a reason why Americans shouldn't want to cling to their top dog status.

[Elok]

There's nothing wrong with American dominance that getting rid of Bush wouldn't fix. Remember, English is a lot easier to pronounce than any Chinese dialect, even if Bush can't really pronounce either one.

I'm not up to speed on foreign policy though. Who would China bother to attack other than Taiwan? They don't have our President's crazy frigging delusions of worldwide democratic sunshine, and will probably only wage war for practical reasons, verdad? The U.S. is the most heavily armed opponent on Earth, and China's chief problem is that it has too many people, which invading America might help to alleviate, but not in a good or reliable fashion.

In fact, I'd think that a well-armed China might work to make North Korea behave more cautiously, and that's a good thing. And bass-ackwards Communist regimes are very good at running even the richest material resources into the ground. China appears to have become more prosperous only in the period of increasing liberalization since Tiananmen. Maybe that's just coincidence though.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Cause the European posters here are running European government...right. Yes, Spiff is reall Chirac, and Bebro, even if he has not been telling us, is Schroder, and llest not forget that all Europeans think alike, just look at Laurentius and Winston- why, the two are two peas in a pod.

I didnt say euro govts, i said europeans. I like poly OT cause its an opportunity to talk about things with folks from all over the world - i find that kinda kewl. I dont come here to obsessively rant. If i need to talk to Americans who hate US foreign policy, I can find them in RL.

You are free to say no, as well, of course, but that would show the depth of your commitment to actual intellectual debate, as opposed to simply posting opinions devoid of the ability to try to defend them.

I am under no obligation to respond to every post, or to respond to every post the way the poster wants me to. As for the depth of my commitment to actual intellectual debate, i leave that to readers here to judge.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


History would seem to suggest that multipolarity isn't conducive to stability or peace, so I suspect there'd be plenty to complain about.

Be that as it may. You didn't give a reason why Americans shouldn't want to cling to their top dog status.

They shouldn't. Can't blame the Chinese for wanting to be either. Whether it's good for everyone else is another matter.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm not up to speed on foreign policy though. Who would China bother to attack other than Taiwan? They don't have our President's crazy frigging delusions of worldwide democratic sunshine, and will probably only wage war for practical reasons, verdad? The U.S. is the most heavily armed opponent on Earth, and China's chief problem is that it has too many people, which invading America might help to alleviate, but not in a good or reliable fashion.

Well, dominance isn't all about invading someone all the time. So a China armed to the teeth attacking only Taiwan successfully would be a big prob for the US influence in the region

[Last Conformist]

@DaShi: They shouldn't what? Sorry, I can't parse what you're saying there.

I'm certainly not blaiming China for aspiring to top-dog status. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to throw some rocks into their machinery.

Clearly, US top-doghood is bad for certain countries, and, given the realistic alternatives, good for some. As for Europe, I'd like it to be more powerful and independent compared to the US, but I prefer the US to be at the top if the alternative is the PRC.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@LOTM: Care to explain exactly which part of GePap's

The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.

you deny?

Personally, I can't think why America shouldn't try to maintain its position as top dog, nor why it shouldn't try and convince Europe that's the best possible world.

Depends how you define hegemony. And of course we do not intend to be the sole steward of world politics, not can we afford to be. We want to work together with our ALLIES toward common goals. That was the position of the Clinton admin. And while the current admin has a more skeptical view of many of our allies, and a less compromising approach toward defining common goals, their actual approach on most issues is in fact much closer to that of the Clinton admin than the Manichean charictature that both their enemies and some of their supporters would claim.

We have been cooperating with Europe, from Haiti to Ukraine to Darfur to the Tsunami, to Lebanon. And now our cooperation in Iraq is likely to increase as well.

Surely nothing could be as frightening to the foes of peace and democracy as a reconciliation between the US and Europe?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Elok
In fact, I'd think that a well-armed China might work to make North Korea behave more cautiously, and that's a good thing. And bass-ackwards Communist regimes are very good at running even the richest material resources into the ground. China appears to have become more prosperous only in the period of increasing liberalization since Tiananmen. Maybe that's just coincidence though.

It was prosperous before Tiananmen. Tiananmen just meant the rise of democracy would be indefinite.

As for NK, I doubt it. US presence doesn't. And I believe that China is satisfied with its current arrangement with NK.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@DaShi: They shouldn't what? Sorry, I can't parse what you're saying there.

I'm certainly not blaiming China for aspiring to top-dog status. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to throw some rocks into their machinery.

Clearly, US top-doghood is bad for certain countries, and, given the realistic alternatives, good for some. As for Europe, I'd like it to be more powerful and independent compared to the US, but I prefer the US to be at the top if the alternative is the PRC.

Sorry, drunk and tired. The US shouldn't want to give up being top dog.