China geopolitics

[walkerguy]

Tibet matters to the Chinese geopolitically because it provides a buffer with India and allows Chinese military power to be anchored in the Himalayas. So long as that boundary is maintained, the Chinese are secure in the Southwest. Tibetan independence would shatter that security. Should an independent Tibet

[walkerguy]

You're starting off from the wrong assumptions.

 

All powers play the geopolitical game to further their self-interests. The US is not just "trying to live," no more than China is just trying to become "big and belligerent." If you don't believe me, you might want to check up on the number of military bases the US has in foreign countries, and compare that to those owned by China. Does that support your image of a country that's just trying to get by?

 

We're policing the world because we're able and want to. Is there something wrong with that? I'd say the only U.S. special interests or agendas are in response to other nations. Nothing "evil" or what have you here.

 

You might point out that the Iraq War was. For oil? We can't get oil from Iraq without getting shot up. Yes? Blood for Oil? I disagree. Of all Bush's mistakes, blood for oil isn't one of them. No, Iraq was a strategic mistake and an intel mistake, nothing more. Also, most of our foreign bases are on scattered islands, unstable nations, or nations which we fought/helped fight and then built bases on.

Edited March 24, 2008 by walkerguy

[Xard]

Of course, seconded. Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead, hence my feelings they're creating the beginnings of a second cold war. At any rate, they're going all out economically with other unsavory regimes and have no shame for the fact they pay their workers nearly nothing, and with bad conditions. Not only that, but life is harsh. The "police" are more like gustapo and they execute thousands for trivial crimes.

 

This sounds as much like propaganda as the Chinese claim that no rioters were killed.

 

The U.S. spread anti-China propaganda? Why? We're just trying to live while China wants to get big and belligerent. China is the propagandist.

 

 

You're starting off from the wrong assumptions.

 

All powers play the geopolitical game to further their self-interests. The US is not just "trying to live," no more than China is just trying to become "big and belligerent." If you don't believe me, you might want to check up on the number of military bases the US has in foreign countries, and compare that to those owned by China. Does that support your image of a country that's just trying to get by?

 

We're policing the world because we're able and want to. Is there something wrong with that? I'd say the only U.S. special interests or agendas are in response to other nations. Nothing "evil" or what have you here.

 

You might point out that the Iraq War was. For oil? We can't get oil from Iraq without getting shot up. Yes? Blood for Oil? I disagree. Of all Bush's mistakes, blood for oil isn't one of them. No, Iraq was a strategic mistake and an intel mistake, nothing more. Also, most of our foreign bases are on scattered islands, unstable nations, or nations which we fought/helped fight and then built bases on.

 

[walkerguy]

That looks like Star Trek. Eh??

[Azarkon]

So build another wall of china. China is repeatedly having problems because they think they must be surrounded by forces. From Ghengis Khan to the current Tibet issue they are just far too concerned with security. Same goes for the U.S., but in a different respect. We've just got thousands of chihuahuas pouring over the border.

 

You might point out that the Iraq War was. For oil? We can't get oil from Iraq without getting shot up. Yes? Blood for Oil? I disagree. Of all Bush's mistakes, blood for oil isn't one of them. No, Iraq was a strategic mistake and an intel mistake, nothing more. Also, most of our foreign bases are on scattered islands, unstable nations, or nations which we fought/helped fight and then built bases on.

 

Even the most naive pundit accepts that the Iraq War was at least for the sake of US national security, what with the whole link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (*cough*). You're trying to tell me that national security is not an important issue, that the US didn't just fight a war over national security that cost trillions of dollars and 150,000+ fatalities in overall damages? That this was all because we're just a nation trying to get by, whereas the Chinese, by suppressing a riot that cost, even by generous estimates, only ~100 lives, but which could've led to the disintegration of the Chinese nation if left unchecked, is the "big bad?" And you're looking to be taken seriously?

Edited March 24, 2008 by Azarkon

[walkerguy]

Of course Iraq was invaded "for national security". Nobody is denying that. That fact is so blatantly obvious I thought it unnecessary to post. Whether it is accomplishing that goal is another thing. I am against the war, but support the troops, for they are doing their duty as I would if I were in their place.

 

Are you trying to say the U.S. is wrong because more people died? Al-qaeda attacked the Twin Towers! Iraq appeared to be the source of the problem as well as the fact they were threatening Iran with weapons of mass destruction. Just asking to be invaded. Besides that, one may think the war was for oil (see prior posts). What does China does for oil? Long story short they kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc, etc. Not opinions, facts. They don't work responsibly either. The United States wishes to drill oil in Alaska, but to soon be hampered with the inclusion of the polar bear as an endangered species. Just an example of a responsible government. What China is doing- is wrong.

Edited March 24, 2008 by walkerguy

[Azarkon]

Iraq appeared to be the source of the problem as well as the fact they were threatening Iran with weapons of mass destruction. Just asking to be invaded.

 

Right. And if the US invades Iran, it'll be because they're threatening Israel with weapons of mass destruction. And if the Palestinians can't get their independence, it's only because they don't deserve to be a nation, whereas Kosovo (consisting of Albanian immigrants who basically took over Serbian land over a period of history) does. But the Mexicans declaring independence? Forget it! They can pack up and go back to Mexico!

 

It's all justified - from the Western perspective.

 

Open your eyes.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Azarkon

[walkerguy]

Open your eyes.

 

You. To your own post.

 

Even the most naive pundit accepts that the Iraq War was at least for the sake of US national security, what with the whole link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (*cough*).

[Azarkon]

What does China does for oil? Long story short they kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc, etc. Not opinions, facts.

 

Just had to respond to this.

 

You're suggesting that the US doesn't kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc. etc. for oil? That's a laugh.

 

Take a look at US environmental history. Take a look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Take a look at our overfishing practices.

 

It's only after the fact that the US has decided to become "conscientious." You might argue that late is better than never, but considering the stage of China's industrial development, it's not at all surprising that they wouldn't take the US's "conscientious objection" over anything.

[Azarkon]

Open your eyes.

 

You. To your own post.

 

Even the most naive pundit accepts that the Iraq War was at least for the sake of US national security, what with the whole link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (*cough*).

 

Notice the *cough*. There is no proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, which is not surprising, given that Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam.

[walkerguy]

How do we find Bin Laden, then?

What should we have done with Iraq?

 

Just had to respond to this.

 

You're suggesting that the US doesn't kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc. etc. for oil? That's a laugh.

 

Take a look at US environmental history. Take a look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Take a look at our overfishing practices.

 

It's only after the fact that the US has decided to become "conscientious." You might argue that late is better than never, but considering the stage of China's industrial development, it's not at all surprising that they wouldn't take the US's "conscientious objection" over anything.

 

Not the point that the US did it. The fact the China is still doing it.

Edited March 24, 2008 by walkerguy

[Xard]

China is now in same stage of industrialization you were decades ago. And decades ago you weren't any better. In fact, you guys were worse than them. USA or any other western world power went through just as bad phase - in modern world however China can't afford doing that unlike you guys in the past.

 

Oil was one of the main reasons to attack Iraq.

 

Are you trying to say the U.S. is wrong because more people died? Al-qaeda attacked the Twin Towers! Iraq appeared to be the source of the problem as well as the fact they were threatening Iran with weapons of mass destruction.

 

Irony points in this going for the fact Iran actually had links and associates and some sort of connection with terrorists - Iraq didn't. And Iraq didn't have WMD's.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Xard

[Azarkon]

How do we find Bin Laden, then?

What should we have done with Iraq?

 

How should I know? I'm not a Pentagon geo-strategist. My point is that your concept of the US choosing its policy based on "just trying to get along" is wrong. The US plays geo-politics just like everybody else.

 

Not the point that the US did it. The fact the China is still doing it.

 

So? You think the Chinese want to destroy their forests and their rivers? You don't think they would rather preserve the environment and develop their industry at the same time, that they wouldn't rather have their cake and eat it too? Don't be ridiculous. The reason China is at all competitive economically (whereas places far poorer, like Myanmar, are not) is because of its "hands off" government policy towards the conduct of businesses - corporations are ruled by greed, and China plays into that greed. You don't have to like it - you just have to accept that it's the way the world works.

 

There is only one thing on your list of unsavory activities that is necessitated by the political nature of China, and that's dealing with other authoritarian states. If China was a democracy, it'd likely find better traction among the West and its allies (though the example of Russia seems to suggest otherwise). Even so, there are good reasons why China is not democratic, and not all of them have to do with the PRC's desire to maintain its stranglehold on Chinese politics. All in all, I'd support a democratic China, but the process needs to be slow to preserve stability and economic growth.

 

Oh and, as for the claim that the US is no longer doing it - last time I checked, we're still buddy-buddy with the Saudi Arabians.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Azarkon

[walkerguy]

Irony points in this going for the fact Iran actually had links and associates and some sort of connection with terrorists - Iraq didn't. And Iraq didn't have WMD's.

 

I know. Those were the supposed reasons, though.

 

Very well, Azarkon, you're correct.

[Azarkon]

Yay!

 

More seriously, though, I'm not defending the PRC as a government (no more than I would defend Bush). I just don't like how we keep getting only one side of the story.

[Tigranes]

Aww, I get here and the debate is over.

 

While the number of atrocities committed against others and themselves by the PRC government could fill up a series of books, yes, it certainly must be said that it is no worse than what many countries would do if given the chance, what many countries do now and did do before, and it is only from the lofty pedestal of a, say, G8 nation or Western Europe that one can casually condemn what they are doing without any effort at understanding.

[walkerguy]

China upset over errant U.S. missile part shipment - from CNN

 

China upset over errant U.S. missile part shipment

 

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- China on Wednesday expressed its "grave concern and strong displeasure" over what the United States said was an accidental shipment of ballistic missile components to Taiwan.

 

 

A U.S. Defense Department image shows the missile components it says were accidentally shipped to Taiwan.

 

China has asked the United States "to thoroughly investigate this incident, and report their findings to the Chinese side in a timely, truthful and detailed manner," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement on the ministry's Web site.

 

"We once again remind the United States to abide by the Sino-U.S. joint communique of August 17, and cease arm sales to Taiwan and contact with the Taiwanese military, in order to avoid damaging the peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits and the healthy development of Sino-U.S. relations," the statement said.

 

The reaction comes a day after U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne announced the accidental shipment, which happened in the fall of 2006. The mistake was not discovered until last week, he said.

 

Four nose cone fuses for intercontinental ballistic missiles were shipped to Taiwan instead of the the helicopter batteries it had ordered, Wynne said.

 

He said the fuses, intended for a Minuteman strategic nuclear missile, were returned to the United States after the mistake was discovered.

 

"There are no nuclear or fissile materials associated with these items," Wynne said. Watch Wynne's account of problem

[Sand]

What I would like to see is a mass boycott of the Bejing Olympics given China's blatant disregard over basic rights.

[Azarkon]

That's a brilliant idea, Sand. I assume you will be leading by example? (That is, not tuning in to the Olympics for its entire duration.)

[Sand]

That is my plan. I just don't mean viewership, but also whole countries not sending their teams to compete. I think it would be silly to send the best athletes of my country into a hostile country.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Sand

[Azarkon]

I'm not sure China would be even fazed by that. People assume that the Olympics is oh-so-important to the Chinese leadership, but in truth, I suspect that they're regretting ever applying to host the event. Public opinion in China has turned against the West, as of late, and as such boycotts from the West would do as much for China as it'd do for Russia - ie not a whole lot.

[walkerguy]

China did so much to get the Olympics in Beijing. With China's alleged capture of al-Qaeda operatives plotting against the Olympics and President Bush saying last week despite issues with Tibet, he would still attend the event in Beijing, I think the Chinese "moodiness" isn't likely going to affect the Olympics.

Edited March 26, 2008 by walkerguy

[Azarkon]

There have been Olympic boycotts in the past which we can reference, btw. The US was the target of one of them

[walkerguy]

I'm saying I think the Chinese want this despite its issues with the west.

 

ADDED: Sorry, I just noticed I copied some text off an ad on the CNN site. Stupid Ads. Stupid CNN.

 

Don't Miss

Taiwan leader: No plans to visit China

Opposition takes Taiwan election

Edited March 26, 2008 by walkerguy

[Nick_i_am]

The sad part is that any real 'victory' over china will probably be won culturally, not militaristically or economically.

 

In which case, hating on them only slows that process down.