First hint at China-USA getting ready to rumble?

amcluesent

Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America?

The long-simmering clash between the world's two great powers is coming to a head, with dangerous implications for the international system. China has succumbed to hubris. It has mistaken the soft diplomacy of Barack Obama for weakness, mistaken the US credit crisis for decline, and mistaken its own mercantilist bubble for ascendancy. There are echoes of Anglo-German spats before the First World War, when Wilhelmine Berlin so badly misjudged the strategic balance of power and over-played its hand.

China's transformation has been remarkable since Deng Xiaoping unleashed capitalism, but as ex-diplomat George Walden writes in China: a Wolf in the World? you cannot feel at ease with a regime that still covers up Mao's murderous nihilism. He reminds us too that China has never forgiven the humiliations inflicted by the West when the two civilizations collided in the 19th Century, and intends to exact revenge.

dopester

China doesn't even have blue water capability. I think it would strike fear into a lot of nations if they pushed towards it... and that is why they haven't.

China's main concern is it's own backyard only.

Kohoutek

If you're worried about the unlikely event of a military confrontation, it's going to be initiated by the US, not China.

After all, with the exception of WWII, the US has spent most of its history starting unprovoked wars - first against Native Americans, then a long list of other countries - the Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Iraq and all kinds of covert operations in South and Central America (e.g. Chile, Nicaragua).

abaxas

Lets get ready to rumble!

RabbitMad

Kohoutek wrote: »

If you're worried about the unlikely event of a military confrontation, it's going to be initiated by the US, not China.

After all, with the exception of WWII, the US has spent most of its history starting unprovoked wars - first against Native Americans, then a long list of other countries - the Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Iraq and all kinds of covert operations in South and Central America (e.g. Chile, Nicaragua).

Philippines - Not sure
Korea - Not unprovoked
Cuba - Ditto
Vietnam - Ditto (but unwise that's why we stayed out of it)
Cambodia - Not sure
Grenada - Not unprovoked
Iraq v1 - Definately justified, but could have been avoided; sadam allegedly sounded out the yank ambasador about kuait months before, but once it had happend should have finished the job the first time
South american ops - probably justified
Iraq v2 - should have finished the afgan job 1st and should have prepared for victory better

I'm not worried about china, they don't have the capability to mobilise their troops outside the asian region

Kohoutek

What do you mean by unprovoked? I meant not caused by a direct military threat posed to the United States, e.g. the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

What gave the US the right to interfere in Korea or Vietnam, killing around 1 million Vietnamese in the process? Makes Al-Qaeda's 'war' against the United States, taking 3,000 lives on 9/11 look like small fry. Al-Qaeda itself was originally funded by the CIA when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to attempt to restore a communist government.

In the case of Cambodia or the Philippines, those countries did absolutely nothing, not even an indirect threat to the US. In the Philippines, 500k-1m civilians died as a result, and it became a US colony for 50 years.

Cuba? Well the US failed invasion was before the Cuba missile crisis and it was solely in response to the fact that Castro didn't want Cuba to be a US client state anymore.

This what Henry Kissinger said about the US sponsored coup in Chile, which resulted in the murderous Pinochet regime:

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

Do you still think the US is pro-democracy? Regarding Iraq, anyone with any intelligence can see the war was fought to secure a strategic position in the Middle East and a client state to provide oil. The human cost? Similarly to Vietnam, as many as 1 million people, depending on which survey is correct.

Mr_Mumble

Kohoutek wrote: »

Al-Qaeda itself was originally funded by the CIA when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to attempt to restore a communist government.

Lol, nonsense

If it's true that bin Laden once worked for the CIA, what makes you so sure that he isn't still?
Anne Busigin, Toronto, Canada
BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.
The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

It makes absolutely no sense for the CIA to fund a ridiculously rich Saudi when there were plenty of impoverished Afghans to support in the 1980s. All rational thought goes out of the window when discussing the US's foreign policy. Everything done between 1946-1991 was justified because of the cold war. Lefties whining about small conflicts and ignoring the wider context just shows sour grapes that their commie utopia failed.

Kohoutek

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Lol, nonsense

It's you that are talking nonsense if you deny that fact that the United States funded Islamic militants in Afghanistan in the 1980s, some of which because Al-Qaeda. For example: this article. Are all the references cited in that article untrue? Or look at this, written before the September 11th attacks.

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Everything done between 1946-1991 was justified because of the cold war. Lefties whining about small conflicts and ignoring the wider context just shows sour grapes that their commie utopia failed.

So you support military operations that killed millions of people, waged because the US didn't want certain countries to be ruled by communists? Take a look at what Vietnam achieved for example. One million Vietnamese dead, and the country is still communist to this day.

It's fine in your book to just overthrow the democratically elected president of a country (e.g. Chile) just because he wanted a foreign policy independent of America?

nearlynew

I like my conspiracy theories.
But there is no need for one in this case.

The facts established by the american government is enough..........

Namely, that 13 of the alleged 19 "terrorists" from 911 were from saudi arabia.

And yet they went to war with iraq.

That is all you need to know.
Deduce whatever you want from it.

Mr.Brown_4

nearlynew wrote: »

Namely, that 13 of the alleged 19 "terrorists" from 911 were from saudi arabia.

Below are the photofit images being used to hunt these people down.

:j:p:mad:;):D:o:cool::eek::T:A:(:cool2:sad:
:cheesy::lipsrseal:undecided
:huh::grinheart



What a bunch.

nearlynew

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Below are the photofit images being used to hunt these people down.

:j:p:mad:;):D:o:cool::eek::T:A:(:cool2:sad:
:cheesy::lipsrseal:undecided
:huh::grinheart



What a bunch.

Robert De Niro's finest role....................


http://www.guzer.com/videos/terrorist_names.php