Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[lord of the mark]

more on Nepal

its a couple of years old, but provides background

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=23149

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It to put the "china threatens no one but Taiwan, theyre only interested in selling stuff, the notion that they might have geopolitical goals is just paranoid blustering of neocons stuck in the militaristic past" in perspective.

Obviously, China has geopolitical goals. I'd be worry if they didn't - it would suggest they'd be crazy.

But I don't see how their comments on Nepal supports the case they're pursuing such goals in a harmful way. Are you suggesting they're trying to pull Nepal out of the Indian orbit?

[BeBMan]

I find it somewhat strange that many seem to think China would be the next superpower, or at least a biiig player - but at the same time they seem to think we should treat it like some third class dictatorship. I can understand many of the fears regarding China, I even would share some of them, but when we all agree that the country will become increasingly important on the international stage (hyperpower or not) I think we should not wonder that, if we behave increasingly hostile to them, they will do the same.

That re LOTM's question if I think an arms embargo is the same as starting isolation or a cold war - no, this step alone probably isn't. But we should be careful not starting a chain of events which would turn out damaging our own position. That doesn't mean we should accept everything China does however.....I just think that many in this thread do not realize that our current behaviour could backfire once China is in the position to act more agressively.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
I find it somewhat strange that many seem to think China would be the next superpower, or at least a biiig player - but at the same time they seem to think we should treat it like some third class dictatorship. I can understand many of the fears regarding China, I even would share some of them, but when we all agree that the country will become increasingly important on the international stage (hyperpower or not) I think we should not wonder that, if we behave increasingly hostile to them, they will do the same.

That re LOTM's question if I think an arms embargo is the same as starting isolation or a cold war - no, this step alone probably isn't. But we should be careful not starting a chain of events which would turn out damaging our own position. That doesn't mean we should accept everything China does however.....I just think that many in this thread do not realize that our current behaviour could backfire once China is in the position to act more agressively.

fine. But of course the EU arms embargo isnt a NEW policy, its one thats been in place for 15 years. Its hard to see how keeping that old policy in place, while at the same time we integrate China into the WTO, etc could start a chain of events. Im not sure where the initiative for change came from - I read somewhere that it was the PRC that approached the EU - perhaps seeking to drive a wedge between the US and the EU.

[Last Conformist]

I don't know who brought the issue to the table, but there's long been discontent about the embargo in certain political and defense circles in Europe. That China has never been happy about it goes without saying.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
I think the idea is to show that China's leaders do have a desire to spread their influence and are not above using military might to achieve their ends. The fact they have not done too much in the past is more a matter of ability than desire. With increasing ability, we should expecgt to see more military adventurism from China.

So then China will act like the US has, or European powers before them? Damn those perfidious Chinese for acting like the white people

Of course China will HAVE to spread is influence- as its share of the global economy grows its share of tarde will grow, and the share of foreign resources it will need- Drake for example speaks about how easy it is to cut of Japan's oil. Well, China does not have enough oil, and it is as vulnerable to a disruption of its gorwing consumption of ME oil as anyone else is-and this vulnerability will simply grow. Ditto as China sucks up the world's iron, scrap steel, copper, and countless other items.

The bigger issue is if the sort of military adventurism Europe and the US engaged in over the last 150 years around the globe, as well as japan in the last 100, remains a viable strategy- and thus, whether the screams about how we have to form some grand allience to counter the perfidious Chinese is wrong, just because its basically the wrong arguement.

Its like the French and British Generals arguing about the best form of infantry suicide attack in 1915 as opposed to seeing that the whjole debate was mindless.

I personally don;t want anyone I know or myself to suffer from people stuck in 1850 thinking in 2005.

[GePap]

Re: more on Nepal

Originally posted by lord of the mark
its a couple of years old, but provides background

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=23149

Yup, the Nepalese king, head of a Hindu mountain kingdom whose main tarde partner, diplomatic connection, fountain of aid, so forth and so on is India wants himself to be less reliant on India, and thus is using his other big neighbor as the tool.

from the article:

Although Nepalese rulers traditionally have been leery of India, seeing it as an overbearing "big brother," the late King Birendra had begun to tilt toward India during the past decade. At the same time, Birendra gradually relaxed the monarchy's near-absolute power. However, these policies often took a backseat to concerns about the Maoist insurgency that has steadily grown over the past five years.

Gyanendra opposed these policies. An ardent nationalist, Gyanendra is said to tacitly support a cadre of elites calling themselves "Save the Nation," according to The Hindustan Times.

The very article posted put the innitiative with Gyanendra, a local nationalist wary of India and chosing to try to play China of India in order to gain a greater measure of nationalist independence....

Yup, those vil, aggresively minded Chinese Its not like the Nepalese nationalist who dislike India having anything to do with it- clearly its all an evil Chinese plot....

Come ON! The very article posted (as far as I can tell, it is correct) puts the whole onus on the King! It does not even mention any Chinese actions.

Are the Chinese saying no the king? No, but then, why should they? Someone is offering to be more friendly to them...unless they have some complete agreement with India, it makes perfect sense to take the king up on his offers.

[lord of the mark]

all rising great powers will expand their influence. We dont know whether they will be benign or not. They might be.

Is it no longer possible for an expansionist strategy to work, due to trade patterns? I dont know. I do know that the UK, Germany and France were intense trading nations prior to 1914. I know that Japan was heavily dependent on trade.

Does anyone recall the name of the guy who wrote a book saying war was impossible because of trade and financial interdependcies - in 1911, I think it was? Norm something?

I dont see that the EUs EXISTING policy of a high tech weapons embargo on China has harmed world peace. I dont see why maintaining it would hurt, and I see several ways it would help.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, is the EU going to lift its arms embargoes on Burma and Zimbabwe?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is it no longer possible for an expansionist strategy to work, due to trade patterns? I dont know. I do know that the UK, Germany and France were intense trading nations prior to 1914. I know that Japan was heavily dependent on trade.

Does anyone recall the name of the guy who wrote a book saying war was impossible because of trade and financial interdependcies - in 1911, I think it was? Norm something?

No, the expansionist policy is no longer viable due to cost. In 1922 the UK, after a horribly long war, was able to take and subjugate Iraq and make it a puppet. Today, the US, at the height of its power keeps a third of its army there and is unable to do so. In 1941 the Soviets and the UK in a few months overthrew the Shah and split the country- anyoen today think that two great powers could just walk into Iran and do the same?

MIlitary technology has changed- individual expectations have changed-the world is different from 1905 or 1945. Maybe in 1911 it was foolish to say global war was impossible- anyone think in a day n which great powers have the ability to, for costs all of them can afford, to within 30 minutes hit any place in the world with enough power to decimate even the biggest cities in the world that a true great power war is possible?

In a day were automatic rifles and cheap ammo is available smoetimes more easily than food that an army of occupation, which uses far more supplies today than ever before, can just hold it against true popular opposition? We, the worlds supperpower, can hold Iraq ONLY because the oppositon to us is only by a small section of the populace and is NOT trully popular-imagine real popular opposition? It would be impossible to hold. This holds true of even the most miniscule state- heck, Syria has decide to pull out of Lebanon- even just ten years ago the army is out on the field, crushes the opposition, DONE.

Nation states were and still are able to carry out long and expensive wars-but this ability has spread globally-and the really rich powers can now wield power so terrible only suicidal fools would try. IN 1905 Japan could invade China. IN 1945 the Soviets could invade China. Could anyone today invade China? NO, not without risking nuclear annahilation.

So were exactly, can any state carry out aggressive wars of conquest? The LAST time any state tried to annex space from another by militry force was in the late 90's, between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and that was really a two sided disupte, so the last example was 1990.

The world has changed- wars of conquest are going out- wars of influence remain a possibiluty, but even serious ones show themselves to be costly.

I dont see that the EUs EXISTING policy of a high tech weapons embargo on China has harmed world peace. I dont see why maintaining it would hurt, and I see several ways it would help.

No one has ever said the current policy was a problem, but obviosuly many European governments feel thier ability to maintain independent military industries is important enough to seek out the markets that will allow their companies to avoid being swallowed by US conglomerates or disppear from competition.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, is the EU going to lift its arms embargoes on Burma and Zimbabwe?

Why would they? neither state is a big enough customer to allow commercial concerns to overrule other concerns.

Has it yet not entered your consciousness that driving this is MONEY?

There is no money in selling to Burma, or Zimbabwe, or Israel (the US and local companies have that cornered) or Taiwan (US dominance, makes selling to China impossible)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


So then China will act like the US has, or European powers before them? Damn those perfidious Chinese for acting like the white people

You seem to take the position that if white people do or have done something, it's OK.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Why would they? neither state is a big enough customer to allow commercial concerns to overrule other concerns.

Moreover, Zimbabwe goes out of its way to annoy us in a way China hasn't for decades.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

You seem to take the position that if white people do or have done something, it's OK.

no, if you read my last posts, people here are acting as if China for some reason will be invariably aggressive- so first there is a bit of hypocrasy, since it would take much for China to be even as aggressive as the model democracies were during similar periods of economic expansion and capitalist expansio.

BUt as I point out, these sorts of aggresive policies are no longer cost effective- war has become too expansive and too hard.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow
Thank you, GePap, for showing that you are both ideologically obtuse and don't understand the principle of peace through strength.

Originally posted by GePap

Originally posted by Straybow
...How they were too weak just 5 years later to oppose Hitler, the Brits and French turning their backs as Hungary was forced to surrender the Sudatenland.

OH, invoking Godwin already! Good for you, first Nazi reference! ...

Ah, invoking Godwin so that you can ignore valid comparisons to Hitler! Good for you, awarding yourself internet nebbish brownie points instead of actually making a point in debate!

But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not.

First, China already has become "fascist" (or at least the twisted misinterpretation that the term has come to mean). The language of China talking about the need to include the ethnic Chinese living on the island of Formosa into One China is exactly parallel to Hitler "uniting" the German peoples in Austria and in Polish and Hungarian border regions with the Fatherland.

Second, some people have this grand idea about opposing oppression on principle, rather than waiting until an oppressor's tanks are rolling in our own streets to do something about it. We thought our allies in Europe agreed, but the last decade has proven their agreement to be more academic than practical.

If you are weak, your enemies are encouraged to take advantage of that weakness. There was no WW3 against the Soviets because we never let down our guard. There will be no WW3 with the Chinese if we continue to keep our guard up.

You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?

This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one.

I know this is hard to comprehend, contradicting Hollywood/New England leftism and all, but please try.

First, the US does not want to rule over our neighbors Canada and Mexico, or Europe, Russia, etc. That goes for the red states as well as the blue states. We've pretty much got what we want here. Before WW2 we tried, really hard, to live in isolation from the political and military strife outside our fair continent. We had a small army and navy sufficient for our own border security.

The Soviets were not satisfied with what they had. At the first opportunity they casually divided Poland with Germany and invaded Finland. In the wake of WW2 they conquered and maintained a de facto empire in Eastern Europe. As much as the French and Germans would be better off under our enlightened rule ( ) we did not make ourselves an empire.

Second, the USSR and PRC were founded on, and deeply held, the Marxist doctrine that capitalist societies had to be overthrown by force and capitalist property owners killed off or turned into chattel. The USA is founded on, and deeply holds, that self-determination is a fundamental virtue and is generally sought by all peoples to whom the idea has ever been introduced.

Third, the USSR and PRC acted internationally on their doctrine by funding and training terrorists and revolutionaries in nearly every country in the world. I suppose a few countries like New Zealand and Leichtenstein escaped their attention.

Fourth, US aggression during the period was almost exclusively directed to countering Soviet/PRC supported activity against legitimate governments. Y'know, the whole self-determination thing. Invasion of Nicaragua to depose Noriega is perhaps the sole exception (but note that it wasn't for conquest, either).

Fifth, there was never, at any time, military planning or political posturing to invade (much less conquer and rule) the USSR. Kick the damn Commies all the way back to Russia, as Patton desired? Perhaps in response to an initial move by the Eastern Bloc. Only in twisted Hollywood visions of warmongery were limited nuclear exchanges "acceptible risk."

In fact, the Soviets did falter, yet we never made a move to exploit that weakness militarily. We didn't move against China either, with their love-hate neighbor USSR on the ropes and PLA still 40 years out of date. The Soviets, by contrast, had Cyrillic street signs for every major city in Western Europe prepared and warehoused for the day their opportunity came.

Please allow a moment for this to sink in. Refrain from swimming or operating heavy machinery until your equilibrium returns by either a) reconciling your thinking to the real world or b) resuming your ingrained political beliefs as though nothing happened.

So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice.

Once more, please educate yourself before opening your virtual mouth. The threat we perceive is primarily not to us but to our allies whom we'd rather not see under a Chinese empire. Y'know, that whole self determination/anti-oppression thing again.

Is this principle something you honestly don't understand, or are you merely ideologically obtuse? "If we all just laid down our guns there'd be no more war."

NO, in fact, unlike you, I realize all conflicts have two sides. It works better when you see this, instead of living in some fantasy charicature world were your side is eminetly good and pure, and evryone who does not see that must be some satan spawn. Or is that too hard for you to understand?

Incorrect. Not all conflicts have two sides. Some are decidedly unilateral, like Hitler wanting to conquer Europe when nobody had the least interest in conquering Germany. And then there's that whole Marxist "overthrow the capitalists and murder the bourgeoise landowners" thing. Russia has relinquished the Baltic, Slavic, Caucasus, and central Asian republics. Yet China still holds Tibet.

If Mao and his heirs had been content to enslave his own people instead of preaching murderous revolution abroad there would be little conflict except for that sticky bit about Taiwan, Tibet, and maybe a couple other border regions. If the Chicomms weren't oppressing their own people (and Tibet, and ethnic minorities, etc) there wouldn't be any conflict at all.

Alot has happened since World War 2 and every conflict afterwards does not have a direct parallel to that time.

Also Manuel Noriega was in Panama, not Nicaragua.

thanks