Enough said. Whats your view ? I like Obama. He is even seeking a way to forward his peace agendas with rogue states like Iran. And to the Russians, he is trying his best to work towards better relations. All well and good. But when it comes to China, he sure as well is trying to rouse China's ire. Is the Obama Adminstration Anti China in its outlook ?
The problem that I have with the your way of looking at this is, when you're talking about China as a nation, you never refer to it as an individual responsibility. So from now on, let's level the playing field and address all Chinese concerns as being Wen's choices. After all, that would treat your comments with the same assign of an individual leader's responsibility like you seem to prefer, with your comments of "Obama" this, and "Obama" that. So from now on, we need to address US (or other foreign) concerns with regards to the PRC and likewise direct it as a personal issue with Wen. So in that vein, Wen has play this game with Bush for years. So why is Wen's administration suddenly changing its tactics? Is Wen becoming more anti-US in his outlook? And please; I can be just as condescending and patronizingly say, I like Wen; he came out during the earthquake to promise aid to all those poor unfortunate people. But when it comes to the US... -innocent2 If the above sound ridiculous or perhaps a bit comical, that's because it really is. Whenever Chinese people talk about world affairs, it is as if one American, the president or the nation, is insulting all Chinese everywhere (or at least that is the stance that the PRC hides behind) but they usually assign blame not to the American people, but directly and personally to one American leader. Is that biased? Of course it is, but the PRC will never admit it because it works to stoke their home town support without insulting all of America (which would complicate many social and commercial benefits that China gets from the US; imagine "why the hell should we buy their products if all they do is insult us? Why the hell should we allow their students to learn and be educated here?"). Oh, and from the other thread, many had posited (with feigned incredulity) the impossibility of a shoe on the other foot scenario being tolerated by the US. Well just to remind everyone, Chinese submarines are regularly chased out of Japanese waters, especially around sensitive US military regions and traffic lanes, where one suspects that the Chinese boats are presumably recording acoustic signatures and echo sounding sea beds for their tactical maps, like any smart military would do. In fact, the anti piracy mission in the Indian Ocean is not so much for the altruism of collectively fighting crime, but was a perfect chance for the PLA Navy to travel through the Indian Ocean, update and record depths, currents and water layers, while shaking out their newest and best electronically fitted intel surface ships, the Haikou, and the Wuhan. I'm sure that both of these ships were sent for a reason. Mainly to see if they can effectively detect NATO (especially US) ships, and observe and record their operational doctrines. Inotherwords, it is even more an intelligence mission under the convenient guise of an anti-piracy mission. The choices of these two ships are not coincidental. Both are fitted with phased array radars especially suited for anti-air warfare. I'm sure that having these ship in close proximity to a bee hive of American carrier combat operations is netting some very valuable data for the PLAN. But you see, this is how the game is played. Suppose the US or anyone else, now challenges the PRC for doing what it is doing? Why did Wen send in anti-air detecting destroyers to fight Somali pirates who have no air assets? Why? To spy on NATO, of course! So the US (or whoever, has the absolute 'right' to defend itselt). LOL... :laugh: Oh, and incidentally, the Pakistani military forums are all abuzz with rumors of Indian Naval assets (submarine) trailing and recording those PLAN ships as they transited the Indian Ocean. They supposedly practiced closing for targeting solutions but were driven off by the PLAN. I'm sure the forums will divulge more as looser lips start to gloat. This is what is meant by the professionalism of the "game" is. Thus, parking a few boats in front of the other guy and throwing trash at him because you can't counter with anything more intelligent is, well... just bad form.
Ralph, I understand the need for military intel, spy ships and subs are part of the game... what irks me is the negative press... ur telling us that Japan/US navy regularly chases out Chinese subs... but is there any large press release about that? now turn it around, a US spy ship is getting chased out, and we have CNN going nuts... in all honesty, i'm getting pissed off at the US response... i'd send warships after that destroyer... and a couple towards Hawaii for some R&R... cuz srsly... China could ruin the US right now if they wanted to...
Dear Ralph, Who is the president of the United States ? Is that Wen or Obama. You are merely dodging the question by inflating an analogy that is not even relevant to the present discussion. You know why ? Simple. The US being a democratic country, under the Obama Administration Despatch a destroyer. So before you go into your long winded illogical reply, check your basic fact first. So answer first. Is that an AGGRESSIVE deployment or not ? Is Obama in charge or he is not. No matter how you fluff up your toast. Its still not going to soak in more milk My take. Stop sailing in muddy waters my friend. Learn to call a spade a spade first Cheers !
How is China a threat towards the USA ? Us military budget is many times that of China. Nuclear asset wise, weaponry of all class and performance far out weight that of China. And further to that, the US is still the leading member of NATO and have military alliance with Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea in that part of the world. If you asked me, perceiving China as a threat is like the Bully crying out because he is not getting his dues. If the US regards China's as a threat which it often have, and you have rightly pointed that out, one wonders if paranoia and sinophobia is the root cause of its policy. Clearly perceiving China as a threat is illogical. The US under the Obama administration is merely escalating the event to serve its own political end to rally the citizens in face of a trump up Chinese threat to distract them from the severe problems the US have now in its very own backyard. If the Obama administration really needs an enemy, he have plenty to take on in his very own backyard. For starters, lets clear out the scores of bankers and the CEO and hit them hard.
True. China also send its airplanes and flew missions over the US Navy spy vessels in question too. My take. Its all about distance. Let's reverse role. If China were the ones who have openly send its spy vessels near any US Naval Base in any part of the world, and then proceed to send a destroyer, China will be branded as the aggressor. Correct ? But why, when the US does it, its acceptable ? The US have called China's response as unprofessional. But its sending A destroyer into disputed waters off China's coast is NOT gunboat diplomacy and the US is just being responsible ?
Japan demands apology over Chinese submarine intrusion China Regrets Sub Incident, Japan Says Japan-China Sub Escapade Raises Japanese Hackles You know the problem here is, there's a lot of posturing and the kind of ethnic 'our guys can kick your guys butt, any day of the week, so you'd better watch it' banter that is far removed from reality. But anyway, you're in error in comparing the two. A US ship hasn't been 'chased' out; it has essentially been captured by the PLA navy while transiting on the high seas (as defined under UNCLOS), as the Chinese vessels are not allowing the US ship to leave. THAT alone qualifies it as an act of piracy. Further, the PLA Naval units attempted to steal the US ship's Sono array platform by using grappling hooks on its tow cable. Moreover, the US response is actually not any different from the previous one (when the PRC did much the same, except it was overshadowed by the air collision). Bush did exactly the same thing the last time when a sensitive civilian ship was confronted by PLAN units. According to Mobidoo: "The Ship in question and labeled as a "unarmed" ship is RIDICULOUS. It is one of the prime US marine assets used in Anti Submarine warfare and it contains the best of its class in Sonar equipment and its purpose is clear..." ...and then: "...the US have called China's response as unprofessional. But its sending A destroyer into disputed waters off China's coast is NOT gunboat diplomacy and the US is just being responsible ?" Considering if it is such a prized asset, don't you think it would be just exercising caution to sent in other ships to protect it after ships of another power essentially has hijacked it and prevented it from moving? In a bit of poetic irony, I find it interesting that the US details the USS Chung-Hoon, an aegis class destroyer named after a Chinese American, to rescue the Impeccable. As for sending a US ship into "disputed waters," one really need to stick to facts. The waters were never in dispute. All side agree that the waters constitute the PRC's EEZ. So technically, that's a nonstarter; the US has NOT sent any ship into 'disputed' waters. As far as gunboat diplomacy? The behavior that describes using naval military force to shape political or diplomatic encounters to one's own advantage; who was it that prevented the Impeccable from free navigation in international waters (as UNCLOS qualified) in the first place? Oh, and BTW? How come there's no response to this: ie, what the PRC claims as territorial waters? Do people here actually support such claims? And to address the issue of Chinese military spending (which isn't really germane to the issue); it is wholly deceptive. The PLA has many assets that generate its own income and profits, such that total military expenditure is actually a lot more than what the PRC government provides, or even admits to. The US is actually involved in a two theater war, where much of its recent expenditure is devoted towards consumables and replenishment. Further, in the value of real dollars, PRC spending is probably a much better value as the US generally overpays for many of its supply chain items (due to the rip off system of government procurement). The PRC in all probability gets the same for much less, or more bang for the Yuan, so to speak. And this comment: "The US being a democratic country..." Yep, it most certainly is; unlike the People's Republic of China, which isn't. That already says a lot doesn't it? And a final note; as for the less than subtle ethnic insult to the American president, I won't bother to respond to the derogatory and racist 'spade' wordplay. It's really beyond me why some people still see the need to resort to such tired pedestrian antics and clearly reveals how shallow some minds wish to be.
@ Aoes i think the u.s could waste china if they wanted too. Then again, i doubt they would, but in theory, the military stenght seems much stronger in term of techonolgy. china has more man power lol. not sure if that made sense XD :O also, if that does happen, price of goods will be at a monster level
Ralphy, What took you so long to reply ? You tired yourself out sometimes buddy. Why bother to chase a tail then isn't there. Quote from you : Yep, it most certainly is; unlike the People's Republic of China, which isn't. That already says a lot doesn't it? And a final note; as for the less than subtle ethnic insult to the American president, I won't bother to respond to the derogatory and racist 'spade' wordplay. It's really beyond me why some people still see the need to resort to such tired pedestrian antics and clearly reveals how shallow some minds wish to be. Perfect and thanks for the confirmation of your stand. You indeed subscribe to double standards. What the US does, is fine and dandy and what China does, will always be a thorn to your world view What spade word play are you talking about ? Gee, take a hold on your lolly. I believe I have been plain and upfront. If I have to insult someone, I'll do it outright And your Map source is from the CIA ? You want me to respond to that ? LOL. Thanks but no thanks. Your map which you produce says enough already Futhermore, your pedestal views simply confirms your shallow values. I thank you for that confirmation. Which for you simply would be USA GOOD. CHINA BAD . Cheers ! :laugh:
The US? Waste China? For what ultimate purpose? There really isn't any at this point because the end result would be disastrous for the world over, especially so for both the American AND Chinese people. If you were talking during Korean war, that would have been a different story; if the US had dropped a device on Beijing at the time (and killed Mao, but sidestepped Chiang), and dictated a constitution to China, Japan Inc's mid century success story would have belonged to the Chinese. Instead, anywhere from 30-50 million Chinese died simply of starvation from bad internal policies and politics. What galls me to no end is that probably more Chinese were killed by Chinese in the last century than by all foreign nations combined. But let me not get too tangential. The US has presently a technological edge; but that edge is rapidly eroding. My estimate? The US will rapidly decline from the world stage in the next half century and eventually go the way of the British empire (Sun never sets, yada yady...). China would rise and become much more influential, however the reception it gets would be dependent on its political style. If it uses the same imperialistic methodologies that other players had done before, then it risks alienating the world much like the former Euro-colonial, Soviet, and American foreign policy failures of the last two centuries. If (and that's a mighty big if) the PRC acts in collaboration with others, it would eventually create markets for both its products and expertise, vital towards any civilization's ultimate survival. But the tea leaves are not kind. The PRC's behavior in Tibet being a template, China is going to eventually fall into a foreign policy habit of military occupation and or draconian puppet regime support (similar to its action now in Darfur). Oh, and the comment of China having more manpower? That's a real double edged sword. An economist would look at that as more mouths to feed. In so far as today's debacle, there is a chance for serious damage to be done to personnel of either side. If the PLAN does make a move and take the Impeccable, the US would be forced to act, meaning that shots would be fired. Again, what is meant by professionalism of these daily "games" of political shadow boxing, is the important aspect of no one on either side getting hurt while both sides gets to express their political point of view. At the end to the day, both sides call themselves winners and go home. However, its gotten to a level of escalation that is becoming hard to disentangle, with the nerves and trigger fingers of simple soldiers being tested. The chance of someone firing a shot becomes too easy. I find it a bit humorous that as we are here debating the finer points of diplomacy, Wen is openly discussing his fears for the safety of China's savings in the form of US treasuries, LOL... That, of course, is the ultimate important issue.
I find it really odd that there is suddenly no further news from either Chinese or US sources about this incident. Since about a week or two, they were last involved in a standoff with the Impeccable blockaded from moving, and a US destroyer rushing to protect it. Aside from sending a modified fisheries patrol vessel to the Paracel Islands, the PRC hasn't done anything else. So, my guess is, the both governments have decided to lay low with this and hope that it quiets down.
