Is China planning a Military Strike beyond its borders?

bladerunner said:

...
IMHO Amercia while not perfect, on balance has done a credible job as the worlds policeman.
Meanwhile I think the West are also uneasy with the jingoism displayed by some chinese on how great China's going to be this century, etc etc.

Click to expand...

One should be very careful about assessing US's policeman role post WW2. Those on the 'right' side certainly enjoyed tremendous wealth during this period but lives for many on the 'wrong' side from Africa, Middle East to Indochina whether due to proxy wars or real wars were as bad if not worse than WW2, like more bombs being dropped on Indochina than during WW2.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Whoa why would the West link Chinese "jingoism" with the Nazi era?? I've heard some "fan hua" call China Nazi or compare it to Nazi Germany but I can't draw too many conclusive leads.
I'm pretty sure the Chinese government doesn't think the Chinese people are the "superior race" or anything... :nono:
...

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

......However although I have Chinese ancestry and triple residency/ citizenship but many many many many generations removed from China, myself and familys future lie here ( we would be a fish out of water going back to China to live).Although I think I can see through most of the B.S. chucked about by both parties, I can be a little apprehensive at some of China's objectives. I do wish her well and hope there is never any military confrontation.

Click to expand...

Schumacher said:

Not much to do with superior race or other policies per se. The Western media just have a tendency to equate their perceived opponents to Nazi or some other horrible regimes, which is kind of funny if one thinks about it considering the 'final solution' implemented on the natives in North America or Australasia was probably worse than the Nazi version.

Click to expand...

Schumacher said:

bladerunner said:

One should be very careful about assessing US's policeman role post WW2. Those on the 'right' side certainly enjoyed tremendous wealth during this period but lives for many on the 'wrong' side from Africa, Middle East to Indochina whether due to proxy wars or real wars were as bad if not worse than WW2, like more bombs being dropped on Indochina than during WW2.

Click to expand...

Thats very true, but when one looks at the Korean war,was not the 4million est total casulties worth the price., We now have 48 million S Koreans , enjoying a living stardard approching the leading Western countries while the North Koreans are in a precarious position of their own making, and not because they lost the Korean War.( I say they lost because they failed in their goals.)

Schumacher said:

You should hope China's predicted rise won't result in serious conflict with the West in the future otherwise being where you are you will most likely be reminded in a not very subtle way of your Chinese ancestry whether you want to or not, and it won't be the China doing the reminding if you get what I mean.

Click to expand...

You Betcha, Im more than familiar, having been around since the Korean War where NZ troops fought against the Chinese, and Im pretty sure you are aware its a problem thats includes all Chinese who live in Western Countries.

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

Thats very true, but when one looks at the Korean war,was not the 4million est total casulties worth the price., We now have 48 million S Koreans , enjoying a living stardard approching the leading Western countries while the North Koreans are in a precarious position of their own making, and not because they lost the Korean War.( I say they lost because they failed in their goals.)

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

"One extreme example doesn't prove anything".

I cant see what your point is as I hadstarted by saying "America was not perfect and on balance had done a reasonable.,.." plus I had already agreed with Schumacher with the occasional horrific situations created by American actions.

I merely pointed the Korea one out as an exception, but I could have included more, but felt one would suffice.

The vietnamese drove the Americans out and are they suffering today? The CIA armed, trained and financed the Taliban, and were the Afghan people better off after the soviets were driven out and extreme Shia law enforced? I could spend all night listing examples.

Click to expand...

But it it was not always a case of America continually kicking them when they were down.
Any misery the Vietnamese suffered for the first couple of decades was self inflicted.
Point is the Afghans didnt want the Soviets there, thats why they were fighting them. THeir post Soviet misery prior to 9/11 is also self inflicted, rather than from American activity.

Everything America does, it does for its own benefit first and foremost. There is almost nothing America does that is entirely out of altruistic motives and does not end up benefiting America in some way directly or indirectly.

Click to expand...

Other than America and all those on her side, who is the biggest winner from that policy? CHINA of course.

Click to expand...

bladerunner said:

I cant see what your point is as I hadstarted by saying "America was not perfect and on balance had done a reasonable.,.." plus I had already agreed with Schumacher with the occasional horrific situations created by American actions.

I merely pointed the Korea one out as an exception, but I could have included more, but felt one would suffice.

Click to expand...

But it it was not always a case of America continually kicking them when they were down.
Any misery the Vietnamese suffered for the first couple of decades was self inflicted.

Click to expand...

Point is the Afghans didnt want the Soviets there, thats why they were fighting them. THeir post Soviet misery prior to 9/11 is also self inflicted, rather than from American activity.

Click to expand...

Other than America and all those on her side, who is the biggest winner from that policy? CHINA of course.

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

"Are you kidding me mate? Care to look up how long America maintained sanctions on Vietnam after the war?

And I find your 'misery being self-inflicted' line highly inaccurate and offensive tbh.

As if the vindictive economic and political sanctions maintained by America had nothing to do with it in any way.

Click to expand...

Vietnam was free to trade with any other country

That's like locking someone up and saying any suffering they suffered is self-inflicted because they couldn't prosper in that tiny little living space you deliberately restricted them to."



Perhaps self inflicted may not have been the correct term to have used, however it was her actions that led to Americas response and for that I make no apology.
In as much as a person is the "master of his own destiny" then so is a country through its elected leaders or otherwise. So as a case in point :....The Trade Embargo was
a response by America against N Vietnamese support for the communist insurgency in the South. Her actions in breaking the Paris Peace Accord in 74 and non cooperation with American M.I.A.may have well contributed to it being prolonged.

Considering we were in the height of the Cold war, America was well within her rights to undertake any steps to undermine the viability of any communist state that was seen as a threat to any adjacent country,whether explicitly asked for or not,by military intervention or any other means such as, trade embargoes or denying any monetry help from world institutions, of which she was the main contributor.
( Next youll be blaming the situation in China in her early years on the Americans)

Secondly where were Vietnams allies post war. While being prepared to give the equivilent in hundreds of millions of military aid in todays terms, why the hesitancy with the cash for reconstruction.

Finally here's a scenario in response to the Norths breaking the "Paris Peace Accord". The Americans could have taken their gloves off and return to really punish the North ( such an inference to return was included in the Peace Accord), through military action to the extent theVietnamese would have been begging for an unconditional surrender.
In this situation would'nt the former course of action, have been better than the latter scenario?.

edit: There has been a lot of reported incidences of Southerners beeing treated in a much harsher manner that is unrelated to trade embargoes.

Perhaps America shouldn't have got involved in the Vietnam conflict in the first instance. This is what I meant that America wasn't perfect, but given the communist insurgencys that existed in SE Asia at the time,and if the domino theory had eventuated, we would have the rest of the world questioning , why America was not involved .
IMHO despite Americas mistakes, most Asian nations still prefer a strong American presence in the region.

plawolf said:

I dare say the vast majority of Afghans didn't really care much one way or the other, just like today. And that the only people who really give much of a toss were the radical international militants, as they are today.

Had the people of Afghanistan knew what these militants wanted for the country after they drove the Soviets out, I can't say I can see many of them being all that keen to see the back of the Soviets, again, much like today.

And again, this ridiculous concept of 'self-inflicted suffering' pops up.

America made the Taliban what it is with funding, training and weapons, and it was this support that allowed them to take over the country after the Soviets left.

Shirking all responsibility and calling the appalling misery the Taliban inflicted on the Afghan people as 'self-inflicted suffering' just screams moral bankruptcy and is again, extremely offensive in my view.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Errr.... The Taliban as an identity never existed during the fight against the Soviets. They only came into being as a identifiable group during the post Soviet Chaos.

Post Soviet occupation the Pashtuns who make up the Taliban and are only a large miniority of the Afghan population fought a civil war against a well armed Northern Alliance who were also armed by the Americans. The fact that the northern alliance lost owes much to the traditional tribal, cultural attitudes and medieval enviroment in which loyaltys can be bought and sold at the drop of the hat (None of which is Americas doing by the way) and is still what confronts the Nato forces today.

plawolf said:

I won't bother to quote you back to yourself but I fail to see how your original statement about 4 million lives being a price worth paying in Korea is in line with the above statement in any way. Perhaps you would care to clarify?

Click to expand...

Its all a matter of choice, and hopefully acting upon the one that has the least negative outcome.

In my earlier post I suggested that America on balance had done a reasonable job, and i will still stick with that, despite Vietnam, Afghan and all you care to name.

plawolf said:

Shirking all responsibility and calling the appalling misery the Taliban inflicted on the Afghan people as 'self-inflicted suffering' just screams moral bankruptcy and is again, extremely offensive in my view.

Click to expand...

Now you are are condeming her for not taking on the role of shouldering "The White Mans Burden"? And now when shes making an atempt, they still dont want it. The fact is Afghanistan was a miserable place long before America ever went near the place. I suggest you read up on the British experience of Afghanistan.

plawolf said:

Firstly, that is hardly out of choice on the part of the Americans.

Secondly, how is that relevant in any way? American and most of the world also benefits greatly from China's rise. So what?

Click to expand...

It was a response to your asertion that ' What America does it does for her own benefit" and on most occassions, not necessarily for altruistic reasons, however on this occassion China got the most benefit from it, and I might add what country doesnt act for their own benefit.?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...