PDA

View Full Version : US Encircling China?



Ray
17 Mar 05,, 23:01
Old Today, 04:06 AM #7
Ray
Senior Member

Colonel,

I am interested in this Missile Defence thing since it has been suggested I believe that India too joins in.

Any worthwhile links from the military point of view?

Though rather remotely connected, I see an effective plan to encircle China and then get it into an arms race in which it burns itself like USSR.

________________________________


Old Today, 12:53 PM #8
Officer of Engineers
Doctrine Studies


Posts: 3,455

Nothing secret, just lack of time on my part.

The Americans already got everything they needed from Canada with the integration of NORAD into Missile Command. The situation that was being presented was that the US wanted Canada in Missile Command as well which is somewhat strange since that position was never offerred (nor should it be offerred) to Canada. From the talk around here was that the US was offerring a dual trigger for any missile heading towards Canada - ie, both the President and the Prime Minister would have to say yes for Missile Command to destroy any missile heading for Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister would have no say over targets heading towards the US which is again what it should be.

From a military standpoint, this was stupid. Of course, any PM is going to say yes to destroy a missile heading towards Canada. The question is would the POTUS say yes (husbanding of missiles in case of a massive strike)?

What the US was offerring in exchange was the re-openning of the cattle trade, settle the softwood lumber issue, and easing of the border trade situation. Now, the US don't have to do any of these things for exactly what they wanted.

Canada, however, is doing some big time ass kissing. NORAD will be expanded to include Maritime and Land Force, though for the latter, I have no idea why nor what good would it do. Our armies are geared to deploy overseas, not in North America, though an integration of reserve assets (DART, CBW) would be nice.

We will deploy a combat brigade to Afghanistan under CENTCOM and not the ISAF though why a combat brigade instead of peacekeeping brigade is somewhat beyond me.
__________________

Old Today, 12:56 PM #9
Officer of Engineers
Doctrine Studies

Join Date: 08-06-03
Posts: 3,455

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Colonel,

I am interested in this Missile Defence thing since it has been suggested I believe that India too joins in.


Sir, I'm not sure there is such a system that can effectively defend against SRBM nukes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Any worthwhile links from the military point of view?


I will add it to the package I'm making for you, Sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Though rather remotely connected, I see an effective plan to encircle China and then get it into an arms race in which it burns itself like USSR.


Rather expensive way of doing things. The other point people failed to remember was that we, the West, nearly went broke too.
__________________

Old Today, 02:04 PM #10
dalem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Colonel,

I am interested in this Missile Defence thing since it has been suggested I believe that India too joins in.

Any worthwhile links from the military point of view?

Though rather remotely connected, I see an effective plan to encircle China and then get it into an arms race in which it burns itself like USSR.


I think China is too smart to get involved in that kind of contest.

-______________________________________
Unread Today, 05:32 PM #11
Ray
Senior Member

Join Date: 08-20-03
Location: India
Posts: 5,987
Send a message via Yahoo to Ray

Colonel and Dalem,

When I start that article on the Encirclement Theory and China's Counter to it, I think I will post it part by part so that you guys rip it apart and in the end I shall have a fabulous article at hand.

It will require a whole lot of research and no harm if you all start you help as of now.

As they say Will be highly obligated, when obliged would have done!

All contributions to

rayc17m@yahoo.co.uk

Thank You.
______________________________________
Unread Today, 05:40 PM #12
dalem


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Colonel and Dalem,

When I start that article on the Encirclement Theory and China's Counter to it, I think I will post it part by part so that you guys rip it apart and in the end I shall have a fabulous article at hand.

It will require a whole lot of research and no harm if you all start you help as of now.

As they say Will be highly obligated, when obliged would have done!

All contributions to

rayc17m@yahoo.co.uk

Thank You.


I'll take a shot at it sure. But remember that I am just a mouthy amateur and OoE is a pro.
________________________________________

Unread Today, 05:45 PM #13
Officer of Engineers

Sir,

From the Chinese PoV, this is certainly reminding them of the Soviet encirclement and they are attempting to break out with the listenning posts in the Indian Ocean. However, Sir, the Soviet encirclement was certainly much tighter and much more reliable (even including India) than what's going on today. The Soviets could count on India to tie down Tibet and Vietnam to start a southern front though of little good up north.

From that context, Sir, what the Americans are doing today (that is IF (I don't see it) they're trying to encircle China - and they don't need to) is a pale comparison to what the Soviets did.
__________________

Unread Today, 05:59 PM #14
Ray
Senior Member

Colonel,

I am starting a separate thread in the Political Forum to separate this from here.

It is an interesting issue since it is worth understanding as to how the US will take up the challenge by China.

All said and done, China is an Asian country and so it should not have taken up so much of time with the US and yet it does.

antelope
17 Mar 05,, 23:23
When you read Chinese articles you see that the Chinese fear a U.S. encirclement and American hegemony.

When you read things that Rumsfeld is famous for quoting you see a defense policy that basically does encircle China and presumes them a threat.

Personally I think both countries through paranoia are creating a self-fullfilling prophecy. China builds up as it fears encirclement and American hegemony while America seeks to encircle China as it fears Chinese power growth.

Bill
17 Mar 05,, 23:48
China is building up because they want to take that which is not theirs by force.

antelope
18 Mar 05,, 00:09
China is building up because they want to take that which is not theirs by force.

Let's see:

As of this morning we have two governments claiming to be the legitimate government of all of China, one with a population over a billion with its capital in Beijing and is recognized by the UN and the U.S. The other one with a population of 23 million with its capital in Taipei is not recognized by the UN or U.S.

It looks to me that some interested third parties are intervening in an unresolved Civil War. It looks to me that the internationally recognized government of China is building up its military to control a portion of its American recognized territory.

Personally I hope democracy sweeps the PRC and the people get to live in the freedom the people in the ROC now have. I am not however anymore willing to shed American blood to take down China today than Americans were at the time Chiang Kai-Shek fled the mainland in the first place.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 00:18
Well since you won't be doing the fighting, i wouldn't worry too much about the American blood that will be spilled.

The guys that will be dying(on the US side) are all volunteers.

antelope
18 Mar 05,, 00:34
Well since you won't be doing the fighting, i wouldn't worry too much about the American blood that will be spilled.

The guys that will be dying(on the US side) are all volunteers.

I have fought and killed for our country.

Last I heard the military fights whoever the civilian government through free elections tells it to fight whether the military is volunteers or conscripted. Last I heard non-obligation officers can't resign today and a stop loss on many enlisted MOSes is in force so I guess we have a hybrid system at the moment. I personally know people now in the military who are no longer volunteers.

A war with China has the potential to spill American blood on the homeland in far greater numbers than those who volunteered to join the military and will be ordered into the war zone regardless of whether they believe in the wisdom of the war.

I don't think the people who died on the first day of the War in Terror were all volunteers. Also when wars are unpopular soon the army must be filled with conscripts.

highsea
18 Mar 05,, 00:43
This is a little old, but it's relevant to the discussion. Sorry if it's been posted here before...

India in US military bloc by 2008

24 November 2004: India will be part of an US-led Asia-Pacific peacekeeping force and security bloc to be established by 2008.

Conceived by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld three years ago but approved after the recent elections by the Congressional Research Service, it fits into his aim to modernise American forces by cutting costs and increasing effectiveness.

The idea of the peacekeeping force and encompassing bloc was conveyed to most Asian countries including India during the opening ceremony of the UN General-Assembly session in New York in September.

Diplomatic sources said prime minister Manmohan Singh was quite responsive, and the Indian armed forces believe it will bring new technology and tactics to their modernisation programme.

Nineteen countries will be initial members, and the leading ones are India, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgistan, South Korea, the Philippines, and New Zealand, followed by smaller states, which are yet to be accommodated, but have given their consent.

US armed forces will undergo a technology revolution by year 2020, and Europe sees the bloc as a “smart move” by America to preserve its hyperpower status, cutting down its own military strength, and having sway over forces from other allies.

China was shown the plan on a visit by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, but it remained unresponsive, and diplomats said India has expressed no reservation about being deployed in a possible peacekeeping role alongwith Pakistan, because the US is said to have taken guarantees for its “good behaviour”.

http://www.indiareacts.com/nati2.asp?recno=3051&ctg=Defence

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 00:47
"I have fought and killed for our country."

Oh? When was that?

"Last I heard the military fights whoever the civilian government through free elections tells it to fight whether the military is volunteers or conscripted. Last I heard non-obligation officers can't resign today and a stop loss on many enlisted MOSes is in force so I guess we have a hybrid system at the moment. I personally know people now in the military who are no longer volunteers."

They should've read their contract better....they are all still volunteers. You should know that too considering you claim to be a US veteran.

Odd that you don't.

"A war with China has the potential to spill American blood on the homeland in far greater numbers than those who volunteered to join the military and will be ordered into the war zone regardless of whether they believe in the wisdom of the war."

Ummm, how do you figure? Or do you espouse the view that the PRC will nuke 1 or 2 US cities in exchange for their entire country ceasing to exist?

"I don't think the people who died on the first day of the War in Terror were all volunteers. Also when wars are unpopular soon the army must be filled with conscripts."

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the War in Iraq is not exactly popular...so where are the conscripts???

You sure seem to know very little for a combat veteran.

troung
18 Mar 05,, 00:47
"A war with China has the potential to spill American blood on the homeland in far greater numbers than those who volunteered to join the military and will be ordered into the war zone regardless of whether they believe in the wisdom of the war. I don't think the people who died on the first day of the War in Terror were all volunteers. Also when wars are unpopular soon the army must be filled with conscripts"

You moron we will not be sacking Beijing but taking out a damn invasion fleet...

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 00:48
"You moron we will not be sacking Beijing but taking out a damn invasion fleet.."

LOL, i was trying to be nice... ;)

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 01:08
On a related note:

http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8567

troung
18 Mar 05,, 01:09
Yeah me and you have had these "talks" with people like this for at least 3 years now... ;)

Hell for some reason this guy is thinking going through the boonies circa 1968 or Stalingrad rather then the fact it is a naval and air war in 2005 on. I guess someone needs to crub stomp this guy to get it into his head we will not need to land troops to burn Nanking. So he should explain why on Earth we would need draftees to fill up the army for and air and sea war? Yeah the ROCA would draft their own people and thats about it...

We would simply beat on the Chinese Air Force and Navy to be blunt. Screw their massive army and what ever it is totally irellavant. Their navy is a coastal force totally unable to play with us and their "air force" (hot air) is a force far more fit for an air show to 15 kids who jack off thinking Red China is some damn super power that can beat us and Taiwan at once. The CCP spits out hot air and kids think they could actually take Taiwan and the USA at once. People don't see that it is hot air because they lakc the ability to do ****. What planet do these jack asses come from?

Plus I have been drinking all day... :redface:

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 01:17
"Plus I have been drinking all day..."

LOL. :)

Officer of Engineers
18 Mar 05,, 01:17
When you read Chinese articles you see that the Chinese fear a U.S. encirclement and American hegemony.

I happen to read Chinese articles in Chinese and while they're concern, fear is not a word I use. The Chinese are boxed in, not by any military coalition but by their isolation, lack of friends, and their own obsolence military.

At the same time, the Chinese believe themselves (self-deludingly) to be the master of the political strategem which they believe that they can outfox anybody in the region.

Your quote of their military capability and willingness is an example of that belief. However, none of it stands up to close scrutiny.


When you read things that Rumsfeld is famous for quoting you see a defense policy that basically does encircle China and presumes them a threat.

It's already done by the very nature of China's location and lack of good neighbours.


Personally I think both countries through paranoia are creating a self-fullfilling prophecy. China builds up as it fears encirclement and American hegemony while America seeks to encircle China as it fears Chinese power growth.

Those of us who lived with the Cold War cannot understand this Chinese worm pretending to be the dragon everyone is now boasting.

antelope
18 Mar 05,, 01:28
"Oh? When was that?"

The Gulf War. 1PLT/69th CML Co 1st AD

I also served in peacetime in the 2ACR and the 82 ABN Div. Most of my reserve time was in the 91st DIV (ex)

"They should've read their contract better....they are all still volunteers. You should know that too considering you claim to be a US veteran."

A semantic game. You can debate that with a stop loss soldier or an officer who has served past his eight year obligation and can't resign. I understand the legality of your argument.

"Correct me if i'm wrong, but the War in Iraq is not exactly popular...so where are the conscripts???"

I wasn't referring to the Iraq War. I was referring to unpopular wars in general.

"You sure seem to know very little for a combat veteran."

You know little to nothing about me. You however show what kind of person you are by making personal attacks instead of having a friendly discussion of peoples opinions.

Julie
18 Mar 05,, 01:39
Plus I have been drinking all day... :redface:LOL.... :biggrin:

Blademaster
18 Mar 05,, 04:02
"A war with China has the potential to spill American blood on the homeland in far greater numbers than those who volunteered to join the military and will be ordered into the war zone regardless of whether they believe in the wisdom of the war. I don't think the people who died on the first day of the War in Terror were all volunteers. Also when wars are unpopular soon the army must be filled with conscripts"

You moron we will not be sacking Beijing but taking out a damn invasion fleet...

You know what's funny? US is threatening a nuclear strike if somebody tries to take out a carrier force and we are supposed to take their word for it but when it comes to US taking out a naval force or an invasion force, they can't use nuclear weapons against US?

Look, Americans (I'm an American by the way), when we talk about using nuclear weapons in response to an attack against CVBG, don't expect the other side to sit quietly when the US takes out or attacks their naval forces.

A cat for a hat, a hat for a cat.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 05:58
Who said we'd nuke someone for conventionally attacking a CVBG?

We wouldn't, at least not under any circumstances i can imagine.

Antelope:

What did you do in your Chemical unit?

"You however show what kind of person you are by making personal attacks instead of having a friendly discussion of peoples opinions."

Troung made the personal attacks. I just think you're clueless, but i was (uncharacteristically) nice about it.

But if i hurt your feelings, don't talk to me.

dalem
18 Mar 05,, 07:23
Ray-

First, again, I want to make it clear that I am not a vet, I am not an analyst, I am not a professional expert on any of these topics. But I am fairly bright, reasonably well-read, a decently aware military and historical enthusiast, and willing to call 'em as I see 'em.

Like I said, I'm a mouthy amateur. :)

Now, from what I do know of China's current military capability, their political egotism, and their history, I really don't think they are any sort of military threat to anyone bigger than Tibet these days. I subscribe to the "tehy are bluffing" school of thought, although I admit that that does require them to be rational actors. I believe this to be true: I think they are deluded as to their role and capabilities, to a degree, but I do not think their Politburo is stupid or irrational.

If I am right about that, then I think I can also safely state that, assuming your encirclement strategy is played out, China will not attempt to beat it by entering in the kind of arms race the Soviets did. Another reason is that I don't see the kind of institutional and cultural paranoia that the Soviets had as being in play; I think the Chinese are more smug than afraid. If true, then I would expect a more rational and practical response instead of a bankrupting one.

But again, that's all just my opinion.

-dale

Ray
18 Mar 05,, 08:23
Dalem,

It would be wrong to feel that the Chinese are a pushover. True that there armed forces are not comparable to the US and will not be comparable for sometime to come, but their political leadership is very astute and intelligent.

While the Colonel may have good reason that the Chinese dragon is a worm, but I look at it this way that the Chinese leadership (in their true characteristic) is presenting a worm facade so that there is no apprehension about the Dragon.

In fact, I am trying to lay my hand on the annual report of the DOD to the Congress on the State of the PRC military.

The little that I know of the Chinese, it is their aim to always make the 'enemy' complacent and then strike when the 'enemy' is off guard.

If one observes. while all the countries finally agree with the US, the Chinese are the only one who couldn't care less and in fact makes the US always agree to whatever they want. So, obviously, the Chinese, though may want to project a worm like demeanour, they do exactly what they want to do and also makes others do exactly what they want the other to do.

So......

dalem
18 Mar 05,, 09:04
Ray-

Leaving aside the "bluff/not-bluff" aspect, I don't think China would intentionally drive down a road the Soviets already died on. I don't know exactly what China wants to do, but I don't think it will be a spiralling arms race like we got into with the Sovs.

Me go sleep now. :)

-dale

Ray
18 Mar 05,, 10:29
Japan cozying up to India

Koichi Mochizuki / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

Recent visits to India by many influential Japanese politicians apparently reflect their desire to shore up Japan's relations with the rapidly emerging Asian economic power, while seeking to prevent China from dominating the region.

"India has been rapidly growing in prominence as a global power. The country will be a desirable partner with which Japan should cooperate for stability and peace in Asia and the world," former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori said at a symposium held at a hotel in Delhi.

Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Shoichi Nakagawa, Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki and Heizo Takenaka, state minister in charge of economic, fiscal and postal reform policy, visited India in January. Liberal Democratic Party Acting Secretary General Shinzo Abe is scheduled to visit the country Saturday. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi also is planning a visit during the Golden Week holidays from the end of April.

Why are such important Japanese figures so ardent on strengthening ties with India?

The main reason is India's economy has grown by an average of 6 percent each year since 1991, when it liberalized its economy. The country has the world's second-largest population--about 1 billion in 2004--and is predicted to exceed that of China by 2050.

The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently reported that the 21st century would be an Asian century, led by China and India, due to the combination of their rapid economic growth and population expansion.

Both Japan and India want a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council. Also, Japan hopes to prevent China from gaining hegemony in Asia by deepening relations with India, which fought China over a border dispute from 1959 to 1962.

As for the East Asian summit meeting agreed upon at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Three summit meeting--consisting of ASEAN nations, Japan, China and South Korea, in November 2004--Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said relevant nations would discuss India's participation in the framework.

On the other hand, China is working to improve its relations with India as trade ties have continued to expand since former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited China in June 2003.

In this respect, some Japanese government officials have pointed out that Japan should maintain a balance in its diplomatic relations with India and China.

"If Japan shows too much preference for India and neglects China, it'll give India the choice between the two countries," a government official said. "Japan should seek strategies to maintain its presence in Asia, while keeping a balance between China and India."
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050318wo05.htm


I N T E L L I G E N C E

Singapore to get US nuke cover

14 March 2005: Singapore is in an advanced stage to get the United States’ nuclear cover, and will pay $3 billion as advance, and subsequently make payments every two years.

Diplomatic sources said that during Singapore deputy PM Lee Hsien Loong’s unofficial visit to Taiwan in July last year, the US nuclear cover was discussed, and America will extend the cover provided to Taiwan to Singapore, as the most cost-effective option.

Top sources said that Singapore will lease an Indonesian island to emplace its missile defenses, and the nuclear cover will counteract threats to its sovereignty that it perceives from upcoming Malaysian military assets on the Penang coast, and from China.

While the US provides nuclear cover to Japan and South Korea at no cost, Taiwan pays for American protection, and the same formula has been adopted in case of Singapore, whose talks on the issue with the US have been kept highly secret.

Diplomats said a nuclear cover would provoke others in the region to scram for their own safety nets, including building their own nuclear weapons, and it could extend all the way to countries in India’s neighbourhood, like Bangladesh, seeking and perhaps getting China’s atomic protection.

Top sources said that several attempts to get Malaysia to desist from building its military assets have proved fruitless, and in desperation, Singapore is proceeding for nuclear cover.

http://www.indiareacts.com/nati2.asp?recno=3217&ctg=World

I presume nothing serious, but interesting.

Japan is also flexing its muscle. They want to graduate from Self Defence Force to Regular! ;)

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 12:27
"but their political leadership is very astute and intelligent. "

Coulda fooled me Ray.

RogerBenno
18 Mar 05,, 12:54
Encircling China has been US state policy since 1949.

Nothing new here.

China's foreign policy is playing the long game. They think in terms of centuries, whereas the West thinks in decades. Their plan is to control or have a big influence on world trade by 2050 or so.

Whoever controls world trade will control everything else. China does not need to throw it's weight around - it is a large enough country on it's own, and with the new energy deals being struck with Russia, it has it's energy supply pretty much guaranteed now (unlike the US :biggrin: )
The US is trying to provoke confrontation with China now because it knows that China is breaking out. But this will ultimately fail, because whether the US likes it or not, we are witnessing a change in the global balance of power. It is now up to the next sensible US administration (it won't be this one) to formulate a realistic policy towards China, and moves to accomodate it and it's new importance in global trade and the balance of power.

All this excitement over the Chinese military and Taiwan is a red herring.
The Chinese were only reacting to Japan sticking its nose into the Taiwan debate last month. (Japan changed its defence doctrine to include the area around Taiwan for the first time last month)
China, by passing this new law on Taiwan was effectively sending a shot across the bows of Japan, and ultimately the US. The US after all does effectively control the foreign policy of Japan. All this is is a US instigated provocation - and one that is doomed to fail.
The Japanese should be ashamed that they are being used as proxies by the US. For a country so reliant on imports and exports, Japan does not need any trouble with its powerful neighbour China.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 12:58
LOL, the delusion just keeps coming in never ending streams.

Is this board linked to militaryidiotsRus.com or something?

RogerBenno
18 Mar 05,, 13:00
LOL, the delusion just keeps coming in never ending streams.

Is this board linked to militaryidiotsRus.com or something?

no - its a political discussion board.

the military board you want is next door.

see for yourself.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 13:01
One cannot discuss the implications of US/PRC policy without first examining each nation's respective ability to acheive their aims via military force.

Of course you know that, eh Herr Klausewitz?

antelope
18 Mar 05,, 16:57
Antelope:

"What did you do in your Chemical unit?"

Troung made the personal attacks. I just think you're clueless, but i was (uncharacteristically) nice about it.


I was the 1st platoon (decon) platoon leader. My platoon was sliced to 1st Briagde 1st AD (which was actually 3rd Bde/3 ID). My platoon primarily travelled as an element of the BSA which also corresponded to where a large part of the divisions artillery package was. We never had to execute our real mission which was to provide chemical decontamination obviously. Unknown to us (and just about everyone else in the Army it appears) it turns out that a chemical decontamination platoon is one of the heaviest armed platoons that operates in the BSA. With only 21 people authorized (and only 14 actually assigned) we had 3 M-60s, 6 AT-4s. 3 M203s in addition to your individual M-16s and grenades. With the average company size unit in the BSA likely to have just 2 M-60s guess who got assigned to clear suspected enemy dismounts in our area? Most of the time we were fortunate to simply watch battles in the distance or watch outgoing artillery. On the last night of the ground war however we were involved in an engagement with an enemy BMP that had apparantly been accidentally bypassed and was roaming in our area. No one in our company was killed in action (or our division for that matter) although our company did have 4 WIA including one soldier who permanently brain damaged. All my soldiers came home without a scratch.

Since that time I have served as a Battalion Chemical Officer in the 1/319 AFAR and served as an O/C in the reserve and as the HHC Commander in a Signal Battalion. I have completed CAS3. Although I loved the military my financial position in the civilian world forced me to make that tough decision to leave the reserve.

On your tone: Take it for what it's worth. Your sarcasm, name calling on this and other threads, and falsely impuning people's credibility only undermines your own credibility and opinion. In general I agree with most of what you post. This appears to be one of the subjects we have a difference of opinion. I stated mine. You stated yours. I posted the facts I thought relevant. You posted yours. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. It's not a big deal. When you boil this and other related threads down it comes to this:

If I read your statements right: You think China can't invade Taiwan. You think America WILL intervene if the attack you say won't happen happens. You think such intervention poses no real dangers to America.

I think China may one day invade Taiwan. I think America may or may not intervene if such an invasion happens. I think such intervention poses the possibility of real dangers to America such that they should be considered prior to such an intervention occurring. I do not support American intervention in a China-Taiwan War.

Are those two statements really worth your comments calling people idiots etc.?

I assume your opinions are based on the facts you know and your personal philosophy that molds these facts into your opinion. If my facts are wrong you're welcome to point it out. If my opinion is wrong however it is still just my opinion.

I think the stated U.S. government policy of "strategic ambiguity" exist specifically because the government recognizes the inherent dangers involvement in such a conflict entails. As such the threat of American force that is likely never to actually be used acts as a deterrent to a Chinese invasion. In the event China ever calls this bluff this policy gives us an out without saying we promised to defend Taiwan.

Ray
18 Mar 05,, 17:08
Roger,


The Chinese were only reacting to Japan sticking its nose into the Taiwan debate last month. (Japan changed its defence doctrine to include the area around Taiwan for the first time last month)

Any links?

Julie
18 Mar 05,, 17:20
Any links?Redrafting the 1996 joint declaration on bilateral security, Tokyo for the first time dispensed with its usual political ambiguities regarding Taiwan and stated firmly that it would work together with Washington for "the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait." It also joined the U.S. in pledging to "encourage China to improve transparency of its military affairs."

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/bezlova.php?articleid=4922

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 17:32
I have zero use for diplomatic niceties, and we truly have argued this subject about 10,000x on this and other boards(we being the core posters of this board). And in minute detail.

Officer of Engineers runs one of the best websites dedicated to the study of the PRC around, and i've had numerous exhaustive conversations and debates with him about it, and so has troung, and Lemontree, and Ray, and probably a few others here too. So some of us get a bit testy when someone comes in and brings the whole thing up again.

The way i(we) all see it, the problem with a PRC invasion is several fold.

There is a PLAN shortfall of phibs and landing craft. There is a PLAN shortfall of NGFS. There is a PLA shortfall of deployable Airborne forces. There is a PLAN shortfall of the neccesary level of both AAW and ASW capability to effectively defend the fleet, beachhead, and anchorage facilities needed for any succesful invasion.

And these are not marginal shortfalls, but rather massive ones.

Further, the ROCAF actually has more modern BVR capable fighters than China, with Western trained pilots using Western aircraft, tactics, weapons, ECM, and avionics. The vast majority of the PLAAF is obsolete.

The four Kidd DDGs that Taiwan acquired from the US are each more powerful than any warship in the PLAN arsenal. The Kidds are very powerful warships, and they're backed by numerous small missile craft and a handful of subs. The Taiwan strait is a restricted waterway, and the ROCN will start mining all likely landing points and harbors like candy once they know an attack is incoming(with US satellite and fixed wing intel, that is definitely likely to be sooner rather than later).

Now let's look at the forces on the ground. Taiwan has over 1 million trained ground troups. They will have the benefit of all their arty, a very comprehensive IADS, CAS operating mere minutes from their forward strips, and perhaps most importantly, a sizable armor force.

Currently, China could not possibly hope to land more than 25,000-30,000 men on the first day, with minimal NGFS, arty, and air support. They will likely not only have no air support, but will likely be getting pounded continuously by ROCAF fixed and rotary wing aviation.

China not only would need to keep those poor bastards from getting overrun by ROC armor, but manage to get reinforcements ashore, and keep them all supplied. IMO, it is a militarily impossible task to achieve without utter strategic and tactical surprise. By the very nature of the confrontation, the PRC has already been denied strategic surprise.

The problem most people make is that they look at the PRC s growth and numbers, and they totally overlook the fact that Taiwan is literally armed to the teeth with top end Western equipment, using western tactics. Then they focus on the few shiny new systems China has, and again overlook the fact that the vast majority of the PLAAF and PLAN is obsolete junk.

Further still, China likely would not leverage an overly large % of it's forces against Taiwan, as it cannot prudently ignore India and Russia on it's borders(particularly India).

Those problems are really only the tip of the iceberg, and if you add the US into the equation, the entire concept becomes almost laughable.

As far as the threat to US forces, certainly there will be some threat to the aircraft, and any US subs operating in the strait itself(you won't see any carriers or cans in there at all until the PLAN and PLAAF are wiped out). The Carriers and Aegis escorts will almost certainly operate on the far side of Taiwan to force any air attacks to have to loop around the whole island at low altitude(china has nothing with that kind of range but obsolete Badger/Blinder bombers), or directly overfly the whole of taiwan- right into the teeth of the Taiwanese IADS and ROCAF.
Then they still have to penetrate the CVBG screen on top of it.

Mission impossible.

That leaves subs. As i stated elsewhere, diesel electrics are out of their element entirely trying to hunt fast moving open ocean fleets in deep water(we've got a dolphin here that i'm sure will second this opinion).

Sir, they don't call it 'the million man swim' for nothing.

Welcome aboard.

EDIT TO ADD: On top of all the above, as is linked a few posts above mine, now the Japanese have declared Taiwan to be in their defense zone. PLAN is no match for the Japanese navy either.

antelope
18 Mar 05,, 18:47
The defense of large swaths of this Earth against foreign agression is based on only one thing:

The fear that America or another nuclear armed power will intervene in the conflict.

If it is perceived that foreign intervention is not a factor then whether the intended target can be defeated by the full spectrum of your force is the only other consideration.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is a perfect example of these factors in operation. It also shows what happens when America's intentions are "ambiguous".

I agree that the PRC has significant hurdles if it intended to launch a conventional invasion of Taiwan. I also think that China prefers Taiwan to peacefully reunite with the mainland in a way similar to the Hong Kong experience. There is also a theory that as Taiwan economically integrates into the mainland that the people of Taiwan themselves will put away any thoughts of independence in the future. You can read some nice articles on the number of Taiwanese with significant property and investment in the mainland now. It may soon be a factor that citizens of Taiwan in significant numbers live in the mainland. These people will impact Taiwan politics as they want no conflict. Some writers I have read think the results of these trends ultimately mean that Taiwan only has a small window to seek independence before their own people resist such actions. I personally doubt Taiwan will declare itself independent.

In the unlikely event Taiwan does declare independence I do not believe China is a paper tiger either. Despite the hurdles China faces, what is not in doubt is that China, not Taiwan would initiate the war at a date, time, and manner of China's choosing. When that first strike occurs there is real question as to what the results of the anticipated massive missile strike and other military operations will be. If Taiwan is prepared it may not be a big deal. On the other hand it may have a devastating impact on Taiwan's armed forces and their command and control situation.

Even if the initial strike does not pave the way for an easy invasion, without foreign military intervention it may well be only a question of time before China is able to run Taiwan down as the fuel, food, ammunition, and spare parts situation erodes away in Taiwan. If China is committed to taking the island regardless of Chinese casulties the war can also escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. There is no doubt China will prevail if they use the full spectrum of their weapons. Any scenario of a Taiwan victory assumes China follows American nuclear use philosophy. This may be a false assumption.

Personally I think the wisest policy America could follow if such a conflict did happen is to airlift spare parts, ammo, and other logistical items to Taiwan so long as Taiwan is able to maintain air superiority over the island. In this way we can keep Taiwan fighting as long as possible in the hope that the Chinese don't escalate up the arms ladder. If the Chinese do escalate up that ladder and are willing to use nuclear weapons on their own territory I don't know why you wouldn't expect them to use them on an intervention force. The model I would like to see followed is the airlift to Israel conducted during the Yom Kippur War.

Since the end of World War II prior to the start of the War on Terror all of America's conflicts have occurred where the leader of the enemy state assumed America would not intervene or did not have long term resolve in a local conflict. I hope that history does not repeat itself in Taiwan.

Thanks to OOE and M21sniper for your insights.

P.S.: During the early 1970s my father got to spend some time on whatever was then Taiwan's main airbase. He retired from the U.S. Air Force in the late 1980s. He said the Taiwanese had the best aircraft bunkers he had ever seen and thought that they were very well prepared for a Chinese attack. Nothing I have read since then seems to point in any other direction.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 19:59
They have a whole airbase buried in a mountain now too, and they've also followed the NATO doctrine of using major highways to disperse and operate their aircraft.

If the ROC forces catch wind that the Chinese are coming just 12 hours before they do(hiding a 100,000 man invasion force and thousands of warships and transports is obviously almost impossible), it's going to be the shortest amphibious invasion in the history of warfare IMO. ;)

OOE, you got a current count on the number of SU-27s the Chinese have? The SU's are the PLAAFs only aircraft that has the range to actually put a BVR capable CAP over Taiwan. All their other birds have short legs. The PLAAF's inflight refueling capability also sucks(as in it's practically non-existent), quite frankly. The PLAAF also doesn't have modern AWACS(Taiwan operates the E-2C), which is a huge problem as well.

It's just that the deeper you dig into this, the more ridiculous the whole notion becomes with China's current force structure. There are a lot of aspects i havn't even gone into. Perhaps the Colonel will rehash some of the finer aspects of the Chinese WZC doctrine since you are obviously interested in learning more about the topic. He knows a hell of a lot more about this topic than me, and is probably one of the very top PRC experts i've encountered on the web. His Chinese heritage probably goes a long way toward explaining his fascination with the Worm. :)

NOTE: One other interesting tid bit that shows the US resolve to defend taiwan is that a US Aegis Warship is always on patrol in or around Taiwan. It would be hard not to get involved even if we tried when you take that into account.

troung
18 Mar 05,, 20:26
"You know what's funny? US is threatening a nuclear strike if somebody tries to take out a carrier force and we are supposed to take their word for it but when it comes to US taking out a naval force or an invasion force, they can't use nuclear weapons against US? Look, Americans (I'm an American by the way), when we talk about using nuclear weapons in response to an attack against CVBG, don't expect the other side to sit quietly when the US takes out or attacks their naval forces."

Never said we needed to nuke them. Just if they as some guy suggested they fired a nuke at a CBG to try and take it out they would catch more nuclear weapons in return.

"In the unlikely event Taiwan does declare independence I do not believe China is a paper tiger either. Despite the hurdles China faces, what is not in doubt is that China, not Taiwan would initiate the war at a date, time, and manner of China's choosing."

Actually not when you think about it. Taiwan has a lot of control (more then you seem to think) over the time and they sure as hell know the place.

"OOE, you got a current count on the number of SU-27s the Chinese have?"

Should be well over 200 by now counting the Su-27SK/UBKs, J-11s and Su-30MKKs.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 20:33
"Taiwan has a lot of control (more then you seem to think) over the time and they sure as hell know the place."

A Taiwanese first strike at the PRC ports would just about end the threat of an invasion so long as the ROCAF didn't get itself majorly attrited during the operation. Would be a gamble, but one with a potentially huge payoff.

troung
18 Mar 05,, 21:24
The preemptive attacks are one of the reasons they are lobbying so hard for the AGM-88C and building their own ARM in the form of the TC-2A. And they also have the French ASTAC pod for EW work. If they can damage the invasion fleet enough the invasion is simply over.

As soon as things get thick and China masses ships nearby I doubt the ROCAF/ROCN are going to sit on their hands and not pay attention. They cannot hide the ships and sure as hell cannot hide loading them and cannot hide an invasion fleet. And of course the PLAN cannot cold start a channel dash at hope to win anyways noticing that on D-Day the allies had control of the skies for some time and control of the seas. They would need a type of impossible suprise one cannot get crossing 80 miles over the water with a massive invasion fleet. And when the first PLA missile or bomb hits Taiwan they (China) lose all suprise and the ROCAF throws themselves at every damn landing ship.

They would have to soften up the ROC and god knows that would take a long time to take out the fighter planes (around 500), frigates, FACs (around 60), artillery (a lot), land based anti shipping missiles (HF-1/2) and surface to air missiles. And then still they have to get a big force on the beach fast and in good order and fight off counter attacks by armored and mech units backed with heavy artillery and anti tank helicopters (60 AH-1Ws). And them getting on the beach is totally dependant on them being able to somehow weaken the ROC so badly that an invasion force could cross the 80 miles in good order with minimum losses (highly doubtful). If the ROCAF/ROCN and ROCA AT helicopters and AShMs cannot be taken out the invasion has no chance at all. And to think we would move ASAP to defend Taiwan if Chian massed much less started the game moving.

China is in no way shape or form the USA and Taiwan is in no way shape or form Iraq. And mind you they are not in a postion to launch a "shock and awe" offensive on Taiwan as Taiwan has a modern well equipped military with American support. The invasion has no chance. This whole crap about claiming the China is controling the tempo is simply admiting there is no invasion because they cannot do one not some sort of control and far sighted planning (I would think 1962 showed a lack of far sighted planning).

They can't hide an invasion force...

Ray
19 Mar 05,, 00:10
Julie,

Thanks for the link.

Patrick Brazil
19 Mar 05,, 10:22
James Pinkerton wrote an opinion piece which may be of interest to this thread. Apparently he believes there's more than one way to encircle an enemy.

Chinese Play A Different Game (http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin174178081mar17,0,6979067.column)

Julie
19 Mar 05,, 14:39
I would say China is more encircled by US presence right now, than the other way around.

Ray
20 Mar 05,, 01:33
Greater China
Mar 19, 2005


The real 'China threat'
By Chalmers Johnson

I recall 40 years ago, when I was a new professor working in the field of Chinese and Japanese international relations, that Edwin O Reischauer once commented, "The great payoff from our victory of 1945 was a permanently disarmed Japan." Born in Japan and a Japanese historian at Harvard, Reischauer served as US ambassador to Tokyo in the administrations of presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Strange to say, since the end of the Cold War in 1991 and particularly under the administration of George W Bush, the United States has been doing everything in its power to encourage and even accelerate Japanese rearmament.

Such a development promotes hostility between China and Japan, the two superpowers of East Asia, sabotages possible peaceful solutions in those two problem areas, Taiwan and North Korea, left over from the Chinese and Korean civil wars, and lays the foundation for a possible future Sino-American conflict that the United States would almost surely lose. It is unclear whether the ideologues and war lovers of Washington understand what they are unleashing - a possible confrontation between the world's fastest-growing industrial economy, China, and the world's second-most-productive, albeit declining, economy, Japan; a confrontation that the United States would have caused and in which it might well be consumed.

Let me make clear that in East Asia we are not talking about a little regime-change war of the sort that Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney advocate. After all, the most salient characteristic of international relations during the last century was the inability of the rich, established powers - Great Britain and the United States - to adjust peacefully to the emergence of new centers of power in Germany, Japan and Russia. The result was two exceedingly bloody World Wars, a 45-year-long Cold War between Russia and the "West", and innumerable wars of national liberation (such as the quarter-century-long one in Vietnam) against the arrogance and racism of European, US and Japanese imperialism and colonialism.

The major question for the 21st century is whether this fateful inability to adjust to changes in the global power structure can be overcome. Thus far the signs are negative. Can the United States and Japan, today's versions of rich, established powers, adjust to the re-emergence of China - the world's oldest continuously extant civilization - this time as a modern superpower? Or is China's ascendancy to be marked by yet another world war, when the pretensions of European civilization in its US and Japanese projections are finally put to rest? That is what is at stake.

Alice in Wonderland policies
China, Japan and the United States are the three most productive economies on Earth, but China is the fastest-growing (at an average rate of 9.5% per annum for more than two decades), whereas both the US and Japan are saddled with huge and mounting debts and, in the case of Japan, stagnant growth rates. China is today the world's sixth-largest economy (the US and Japan being first and second) and America's third-largest trading partner after Canada and Mexico. According to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) statisticians in their Factbook 2003, China is actually already the second-largest economy on Earth measured on a purchasing-power-parity basis - that is, in terms of what China actually produces rather than prices and exchange rates. The CIA calculates the United States' gross domestic product (GDP) - the total value of all goods and services produced within a country - for 2003 as US$10.4 trillion and China's as $5.7 trillion. This gives China's 1.3 billion people a per capita GDP of $4,385.

Between 1992 and 2003, Japan was China's largest trading partner, but in 2004 Japan fell to third place, behind the European Union and the United States. China's trade volume for 2004 was $1.2 trillion, third in the world after the US and Germany, and well ahead of Japan's $1.07 trillion. China's trade with the US grew some 34% in 2004 and has turned the California cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland into the three busiest seaports in the United States.

The truly significant trade development of 2004 was the EU's emergence as China's biggest economic partner, suggesting the possibility of a Sino-European cooperative bloc confronting a less vital Japanese-American one. As the Financial Times observed, "Three years after its entry into the World Trade Organization [in 2001], China's influence in global commerce is no longer merely significant. It is crucial." For example, most Dell computers sold in the US are made in China, as are the digital-video-disc players of Japan's Funai Electric Co. Funai annually exports some 10 million DVD players and television sets from China to the United States, where they are sold primarily in Wal-Mart stores. China's trade with Europe in 2004 was worth $177.2 billion, with the United States $169.6 billion, and with Japan $167.8 billion.

China's growing economic weight in the world is widely recognized and applauded, but it is China's growth rates and their effect on the future global balance of power that the US and Japan, rightly or wrongly, fear. The CIA's National Intelligence Council forecasts that China's GDP will equal Britain's in 2005, Germany's in 2009, Japan's in 2017, and the United States' in 2042. But Shahid Javed Burki, former vice president of the World Bank's China Department and a former finance minister of Pakistan, predicts that by 2025 China will probably have a GDP of $25 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity and will have become the world's largest economy, followed by the United States at $20 trillion and India at about $13 trillion - and Burki's analysis is based on a conservative prediction of a 6% Chinese growth rate sustained over the next two decades. He foresees Japan's inevitable decline because its population will begin to shrink drastically after about 2010. Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs reports that the number of men in Japan already declined by 0.01% in 2004; and some demographers, it notes, anticipate that by the end of the century the country's population could shrink by nearly two-thirds, from 127.7 million today to 45 million, the same population it had in 1910.

By contrast, China's population is likely to stabilize at approximately 1.4 billion people and is heavily weighted toward males. (According to Howard French of the New York Times, in one large southern city the government-imposed one-child-per-family policy and the availability of sonograms have resulted in a ratio of 129 boys born for every 100 girls; 147 boys for every 100 girls for couples seeking second or third children. The 2000 census for the country as a whole put the reported sex ratio at birth at about 117 boys to 100 girls.) Chinese domestic economic growth is expected to continue for decades, reflecting the pent-up demand of its huge population, relatively low levels of personal debt, and a dynamic underground economy not recorded in official statistics. Most important, China's external debt is relatively small and easily covered by its reserves; whereas both the US and Japan are approximately $7 trillion in the red, which is worse for Japan, with less than half the US population and economic clout.

Ironically, part of Japan's debt is a product of its efforts to help prop up America's global imperial stance. For example, in the period since the end of the Cold War, Japan has subsidized America's military bases in Japan to the staggering tune of approximately $70 billion. Refusing to pay for its profligate consumption patterns and military expenditures through taxes on its own citizens, the United States is financing these outlays by going into debt to Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and India. This situation has become increasingly unstable as the US requires capital imports of at least $2 billion per day to pay for its governmental expenditures. Any decision by East Asian central banks to move significant parts of their foreign-exchange reserves out of the US dollar and into the euro or other currencies to protect themselves from dollar depreciation would produce the mother of all financial crises.

Japan still possesses the world's largest foreign-exchange reserves, which at the end of January stood at around $841 billion. But China sits on a $609.9 billion pile of dollars (as of the end of 2004), earned from its trade surpluses with the US. Meanwhile, the US government and Japanese followers of George W Bush insult China in every way they can, particularly over the status of China's breakaway province, the island of Taiwan. The distinguished economic analyst William Greider recently noted, "Any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly ... American leadership has ... become increasingly delusional - I mean that literally - and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it."

The Bush administration is unwisely threatening China by urging Japan to rearm and by promising Taiwan that, should China use force to prevent a Taiwanese declaration of independence, the US will go to war on its behalf. It is hard to imagine more shortsighted, irresponsible policies, but in light of the Bush administration's Alice in Wonderland war in Iraq, the acute anti-Americanism it has generated globally, and the politicization of America's intelligence services, it seems possible that the US and Japan might actually precipitate a war with China over Taiwan.

Japan rearms
Since the end of World War II, and particularly since gaining its independence in 1952, Japan has subscribed to a pacifist foreign policy. It has resolutely refused to maintain offensive military forces or to become part of America's global military system. Japan did not, for example, participate in the 1991 war against Iraq, nor has it joined collective security agreements in which it would have to match the military contributions of its partners. Since the signing in 1952 of the Japan-United States Security Treaty, the country has officially been defended from so-called external threats by US forces located on some 91 bases on the Japanese mainland and the island of Okinawa. The US 7th Fleet even has its home port at the old Japanese naval base of Yokosuka. Japan not only subsidizes these bases but subscribes to the public fiction that the US forces are present only for its defense. In fact, Japan has no control over how and where the US employs its land, sea and air forces based on Japanese territory, and the Japanese and US governments have until quite recently finessed the issue simply by never discussing it.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States has repeatedly pressured Japan to revise Article 9 of its constitution (renouncing the use of force except as a matter of self-defense) and become what US officials call a "normal nation". For example, last August 13, then secretary of state Colin Powell stated baldly in Tokyo that if Japan ever hoped to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council it would first have to get rid of its pacifist constitution. Japan's claim to a Security Council seat is based on the fact that, although its share of global GDP is only 14%, it pays 20% of the total UN budget. Powell's remark was blatant interference in Japan's internal affairs, but it merely echoed many messages delivered by former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, the leader of a reactionary clique in Washington that has worked for years to remilitarize Japan and so enlarge a major new market for US arms. Its members include Torkel Patterson, Robin Sakoda, David Asher and James Kelly at the State Department; Michael Green on the National Security Council's staff; and numerous uniformed military officers at the Pentagon and at the headquarters of the Pacific Command at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

America's intention is to turn Japan into what Washington neo-conservatives like to call the "Britain of the Far East" - and then use it as a proxy in checkmating North Korea and balancing China. On October 11, 2000, Michael Green, then a member of Armitage Associates, wrote, "We see the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain as a model for the [US-Japan] alliance." Japan has so far not resisted this US pressure since it complements a renewed nationalism among Japanese voters and a fear that a burgeoning capitalist China threatens Japan's established position as the leading economic power in East Asia. Japanese officials also claim that the country feels threatened by North Korea's developing nuclear and missile programs, although they know that the North Korean standoff could be resolved virtually overnight - if the Bush administration would cease trying to overthrow the Pyongyang regime and instead deliver on US trade promises (in return for North Korea's agreement to give up its nuclear-weapons program). Instead, on February 25, the State Department announced that "the US will refuse North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's demand for a guarantee of 'no hostile intent' to get Pyongyang back into negotiations over its nuclear-weapons programs". And on March 7, Bush nominated John Bolton to be US ambassador to the United Nations even though North Korea has refused to negotiate with him because of his insulting remarks about the country.

Japan's remilitarization worries a segment of the Japanese public and is opposed throughout East Asia by all the nations Japan victimized during World War II, including China, both Koreas, and even Australia. As a result, the Japanese government has launched a stealth program of incremental rearmament. Since 1992, it has enacted 21 major pieces of security-related legislation, nine in 2004 alone. These began with the International Peace Cooperation Law of 1992, which for the first time authorized Japan to send troops to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.

Remilitarization has since taken many forms, including expanding military budgets, legitimizing and legalizing the sending of military forces abroad, a commitment to join the US missile defense ("Star Wars") program - something the Canadians refused to do in February - and a growing acceptance of military solutions to international problems. This gradual process was greatly accelerated in 2001 by the simultaneous coming to power of President George W Bush and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Koizumi made his first visit to the United States in July of that year and, in May 2003, received the ultimate imprimatur, an invitation to Bush's "ranch" in Crawford, Texas. Shortly thereafter, Koizumi agreed to send a contingent of 550 troops to Iraq for a year, extended their stay for another year in 2004 and, on October 14, personally endorsed Bush's re-election.

A new nuclear giant in the making?
Koizumi has appointed to his cabinets over the years hardline anti-Chinese, pro-Taiwanese politicians. Phil Deans, director of the Contemporary China Institute in the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, observes, "There has been a remarkable growth of pro-Taiwan sentiment in Japan. There is not one pro-China figure in the Koizumi cabinet." Members of the latest Koizumi cabinet include Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono and Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, both ardent militarists; Machimura is a member of the right-wing faction of former prime minister Yoshiro Mori, which supports an independent Taiwan and maintains extensive covert ties with Taiwanese leaders and businessmen.

Taiwan, it should be remembered, was a Japanese colony from 1895-1945. Unlike the harsh Japanese military rule over Korea from 1910-45, it experienced relatively benign governance by a civilian Japanese administration. The island, while bombed by the Allies, was not a battleground during World War II, although it was harshly occupied by the Chinese Nationalists (Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang) immediately after the war. Today, as a result, many Taiwanese speak Japanese and have a favorable view of Japan. Taiwan is virtually the only place in East Asia where Japanese are fully welcomed and liked.

Bush and Koizumi have developed elaborate plans for military cooperation between their two countries. Crucial to such plans is the scrapping of the Japanese constitution of 1947. If nothing gets in the way, Koizumi's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) intends to introduce a new constitution on the occasion of the party's 50th anniversary this coming November. This has been deemed appropriate because the LDP's founding charter of 1955 set as a basic party goal the "establishment of Japan's own constitution" - a reference to the fact that General Douglas MacArthur's post-World War II occupation headquarters actually drafted the current constitution. The original LDP policy statement also called for "the eventual removal of US troops from Japanese territory", which may be one of the hidden purposes behind Japan's urge to rearm.

A major goal of the Americans is to gain Japan's active participation in their massively expensive missile defense program. The Bush administration is seeking, among other things, an end to Japan's ban on the export of military technology, since it wants Japanese engineers to help solve some of the technical problems of its so-far-failing Star Wars system. The United States has also been actively negotiating with Japan to relocate the US Army's 1st Corps from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Camp Zama, southwest of Tokyo in the densely populated prefecture of Kanagawa, whose capital is Yokohama. These US forces in Japan would then be placed under the command of a four-star general, who would be on a par with regional commanders such as Centcom commander John Abizaid, who lords it over Iraq and South Asia. The new command would be in charge of all US Army "force projection" operations beyond East Asia and would inevitably implicate Japan in the daily military operations of the American empire. Garrisoning even a small headquarters, much less the whole 1st Corps made up of an estimated 40,000 soldiers, in such a sophisticated and centrally located prefecture as Kanagawa is also guaranteed to generate intense public opposition as well as rapes, fights, car accidents and other incidents similar to the ones that occur daily in Okinawa.

Meanwhile, Japan intends to upgrade its Defense Agency (Boeicho) into a ministry and possibly develop its own nuclear-weapons capability. Goading the Japanese government to assert itself militarily may well cause the country to go nuclear in order to "deter" China and North Korea, while freeing Japan from its dependency on the US "nuclear umbrella". Military analyst Richard Tanter notes that Japan already has "the undoubted capacity to satisfy all three core requirements for a usable nuclear weapon: a military nuclear device, a sufficiently accurate targeting system, and at least one adequate delivery system". Japan's combination of fully functioning fission and breeder reactors plus nuclear-fuel reprocessing facilities gives it the ability to build advanced thermonuclear weapons; its H-II and H-IIA rockets, in-flight refueling capacity for fighter bombers, and military-grade surveillance satellites assure that it could deliver its weapons accurately to regional targets. What it currently lacks are the platforms (such as submarines) for a secure retaliatory force in order to dissuade a nuclear adversary from launching a preemptive first strike.

The Taiwanese knot
Japan may talk a lot about the dangers of North Korea, but the real objective of its rearmament is China. This has become clear from the ways in which Japan has recently injected itself into the single most delicate and dangerous issue of East Asian international relations - the problem of Taiwan. Japan invaded China in 1931 and was its wartime tormentor thereafter as well as Taiwan's colonial overlord. Even then, however, Taiwan was viewed as a part of China, as the United States has long recognized. What remains to be resolved are the terms and timing of Taiwan's reintegration with the Chinese mainland. This process was deeply complicated by the fact that in 1987 Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists, who had retreated to Taiwan in 1949 at the end of the Chinese civil war (and were protected there by the US 7th Fleet ever after), finally ended martial law on the island. Taiwan has since matured into a vibrant democracy and the Taiwanese are now starting to display their own mixed opinions about their future.

In 2000, the Taiwanese people ended a long monopoly of power by the Nationalists and gave the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), headed by President Chen Shui-bian, an electoral victory. A native Taiwanese (as distinct from the large contingent of mainlanders who came to Taiwan in the baggage train of Chiang's defeated armies), Chen stands for an independent Taiwan, as does his party. By contrast, the Nationalists, together with a powerful mainlander splinter party, the People First Party headed by James Soong (Song Chuyu), hope to see an eventual peaceful unification of Taiwan with China. On March 7, the Bush administration complicated these delicate relations by nominating John Bolton to be the US ambassador to the United Nations. He is an avowed advocate of Taiwanese independence and was once a paid consultant to the Taiwanese government.

Last May, in a very close and contested election, Chen Shui-bian was re-elected, and on May 20, the notorious right-wing Japanese politician Shintaro Ishihara attended his inauguration in Taipei. (Ishihara believes that Japan's 1937 Rape of Nanking was "a lie made up by the Chinese".) Though Chen won with only 50.1% of the vote, this was still a sizable increase over his 33.9% in 2000, when the opposition was divided. The Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately appointed Koh Se-kai as its informal ambassador to Japan. Koh has lived in Japan for some 33 years and maintains extensive ties to senior political and academic figures there. China responded that it would "completely annihilate" any moves toward Taiwanese independence - even if it meant scuttling the 2008 Beijing Olympics and good relations with the United States.

Contrary to the machinations of American neo-cons and Japanese rightists, however, the Taiwanese people have revealed themselves to be open to negotiating with China over the timing and terms of reintegration. On August 23, the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan's parliament) enacted changes in its voting rules to prevent Chen from amending the constitution to favor independence, as he had promised to do in his re-election campaign. This action drastically lowered the risk of conflict with China. Probably influencing the Legislative Yuan was the warning issued on August 22 by Singapore's new prime minister, Lee Hsien-loong: "If Taiwan goes for independence, Singapore will not recognize it. In fact, no Asian country will recognize it. China will fight. Win or lose, Taiwan will be devastated."

The next important development was parliamentary elections on December 11. President Chen called his campaign a referendum on his pro-independence policy and asked for a mandate to carry out his reforms. Instead he lost decisively. The opposition Nationalists and the People First Party won 114 seats in the 225-seat parliament, while Chen's DPP and its allies took only 101. (Ten seats went to independents.) The Nationalist leader, Lien Chan, whose party won 79 seats to the DPP's 89, said, "Today we saw extremely clearly that all the people want stability in this country."

Chen's failure to capture control of parliament also meant that a proposed purchase of $19.6 billion worth of arms from the United States was doomed. The deal included guided-missile destroyers, P-3 anti-submarine aircraft, diesel submarines, and advanced Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems. The Nationalists and James Soong's supporters regard the price as too high and mostly a financial sop to the Bush administration, which has been pushing the sale since 2001. They also believe the weapons would not improve Taiwan's security.

On December 27, mainland China issued its fifth Defense White Paper on the goals of the country's national defense efforts. As one longtime observer, Robert Bedeski, noted, "At first glance, the Defense White Paper is a hardline statement on territorial sovereignty and emphasizes China's determination not to tolerate any moves at secession, independence or separation. However, the next paragraph ... indicates a willingness to reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait: so long as the Taiwan authorities accept the one-China principle and stop their separatist activities aimed at 'Taiwan independence', cross-strait talks can be held at any time on officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides."

It appears that this is also the way the Taiwanese read the message. On February 24, President Chen met for the first time since October 2000 with chairman James Soong of the People First Party. The two leaders, holding diametrically opposed views on relations with the mainland, nonetheless signed a joint statement outlining 10 points of consensus. They pledged to try to open full transport and commercial links across the Taiwan Strait, increase trade, and ease the ban on investments in China by many Taiwanese business sectors. The mainland reacted favorably at once. Astonishingly, this led Chen to say that he "would not rule out Taiwan's eventual reunion with China, provided Taiwan's 23 million people accepted it".

If the United States and Japan left China and Taiwan to their own devices, it seems possible that they would work out a modus vivendi. Taiwan has already invested some $150 billion in the mainland, and the two economies are becoming more closely integrated every day. There also seems to be a growing recognition in Taiwan that it would be very difficult to live as an independent Chinese-speaking nation alongside a country with 1.3 billion people, 9.6 million square kilometers of territory, a rapidly growing $1.4 trillion economy, and aspirations to regional leadership in East Asia. Rather than declaring its independence, Taiwan might try to seek a status somewhat like that of French Canada - a kind of looser version of a Chinese Quebec under nominal central government control but maintaining separate institutions, laws and customs.

The mainland would be so relieved by this solution it would probably accept it, particularly if it could be achieved before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China fears that Taiwanese radicals want to declare independence a month or two before those Olympics, betting that China would not attack then because of its huge investment in the forthcoming Games. Most observers believe, however, that China would have no choice but to go to war because failure to do so would invite a domestic revolution against the Chinese Communist Party for violating the national integrity of China.

Sino-American, Sino-Japanese relations spiral downward
It has long been an article of neo-con faith that the US must do everything in its power to prevent the development of rival power centers, whether friendly or hostile. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this meant they turned their attention to China as one of the United States' probable next enemies. In 2001, having come to power, the neo-conservatives shifted much of the US's nuclear targeting from Russia to China. They also began regular high-level military talks with Taiwan over defense of the island, ordered a shift of US Army personnel and supplies to the Asia-Pacific region, and worked strenuously to promote the remilitarization of Japan.

On April 1, 2001, a US Navy EP-3E Aries II electronic spy plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter off the south China coast. The US aircraft was on a mission to provoke Chinese radar defenses and then record the transmissions and procedures the Chinese used in sending up interceptors. The Chinese jet went down and the pilot lost his life, while the US plane landed safely on Hainan Island and its crew of 24 spies was well treated by the Chinese authorities.

It soon became clear that China was not interested in a confrontation, since many of its most important investors have their headquarters in the United States. But it could not instantly return the crew of the spy plane without risking powerful domestic criticism for obsequiousness in the face of provocation. It therefore delayed for 11 days until it received a pro forma US apology for causing the death of a Chinese pilot on the edge of the country's territorial airspace and for making an unauthorized landing at a Chinese military airfield. Meanwhile, the US media had labeled the crew as "hostages", encouraged their relatives to tie yellow ribbons around neighborhood trees, hailed the president for doing "a first-rate job" to free them, and endlessly criticized China for its "state-controlled media". They carefully avoided mentioning that the United States enforces around the country a 200-mile aircraft-intercept zone that stretches far beyond territorial waters.

On April 25, 2001, during an interview on national television, President Bush was asked whether he would ever use "the full force of the American military" against China for the sake of Taiwan. He responded, "Whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend herself." This was US policy until September 11, 2001, when China enthusiastically joined the "war on terrorism" and Bush and his neo-cons became preoccupied with their "axis of evil" and making war on Iraq. The United States and China were also enjoying extremely close economic relations, which the big-business wing of the Republican Party did not want to jeopardize.

The Middle East thus trumped the neo-cons' Asia policy. While the Americans were distracted, China went about its economic business for almost four years, emerging as a powerhouse of Asia and a potential organizing node for Asian economies. Rapidly industrializing China also developed a voracious appetite for petroleum and other raw materials, which brought it into direct competition with the world's largest importers, the US and Japan.

By the summer of 2004, Bush strategists, distracted as they were by Iraq, again became alarmed over China's growing power and its potential to challenge US hegemony in East Asia. The Republican Party platform unveiled at its convention in New York in August proclaimed that "America will help Taiwan defend itself". During that summer, the US Navy also carried out exercises it dubbed "Operation Summer Pulse '04", which involved the simultaneous deployment at sea of seven of the United States' 12 carrier strike groups. A US carrier strike group includes an aircraft carrier (usually with nine or 10 squadrons of planes, a total of about 85 aircraft in all), a guided-missile cruiser, two guided-missile destroyers, an attack submarine, and a combination ammunition-oiler-supply ship. Deploying seven such armadas at the same time was unprecedented - and very expensive. Even though only three of the carrier strike groups were sent to the Pacific and no more than one was patrolling off Taiwan at a time, the Chinese became deeply alarmed that this marked the beginning of an attempted rerun of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy aimed at them.

This US show of force and Chen Shui-bian's polemics preceding the December elections also seemed to over-stimulate the Taiwanese. On October 26 in Beijing, then secretary of state Colin Powell tried to calm things down by declaring to the press, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy ... We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."

Powell's statement seemed unequivocal enough, but significant doubts persisted about whether he had much influence within the Bush administration or whether he could speak for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Early in 2005, Porter Goss, the new director of the CIA, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Admiral Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, all told Congress that China's military modernization was going ahead much faster than previously believed. They warned that the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, the every-four-years formal assessment of US military policy, would take a much harsher view of the threat posed by China than the 2001 overview.

In this context, the Bush administration, perhaps influenced by the election of November 2 and the transition from Colin Powell's to Condoleezza Rice's State Department, played its most dangerous card. On February 19 in Washington, it signed a new military agreement with Japan. For the first time, Japan joined the US administration in identifying security in the Taiwan Strait as a "common strategic objective". Nothing could have been more alarming to China's leaders than the revelation that Japan had decisively ended six decades of official pacifism by claiming a right to intervene in the Taiwan Strait.

It is possible that, in the years to come, Taiwan itself may recede in importance to be replaced by even more direct Sino-Japanese confrontations. This would be an ominous development indeed, one that the United States would be responsible for having abetted but would certainly be unable to control. The kindling for a Sino-Japanese explosion has long been in place. After all, during World War II the Japanese killed approximately 23 million Chinese throughout East Asia - higher casualties than the staggering ones suffered by Russia at the hands of the Nazis - and yet Japan refuses to atone for or even acknowledge its historical war crimes. Quite the opposite, it continues to rewrite history, portraying itself as the liberator of Asia and a victim of European and US imperialism.

In - for the Chinese - a painful act of symbolism, after becoming Japanese prime minister in 2001, Junichiro Koizumi made his first official visit to Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, a practice that he has repeated every year since. Koizumi likes to say to foreigners that he is merely honoring Japan's war dead. Yasukuni, however, is anything but a military cemetery or a war memorial. It was established in 1869 by Emperor Meiji as a Shinto shrine (though with its torii archways made of steel rather than the traditional red-painted wood) to commemorate the lives lost in campaigns to return direct imperial rule to Japan. During World War II, Japanese militarists took over the shrine and used it to promote patriotic and nationalistic sentiments. Today, Yasukuni is said to be dedicated to the spirits of approximately 2.4 million Japanese who have died in the country's wars, both civil and foreign, since 1853.

In 1978, for reasons that have never been made clear, General Hideki Tojo and six other wartime leaders who had been hanged by the Allied Powers as war criminals were collectively enshrined at Yasukuni. The current chief priest of the shrine denies that they were war criminals, saying, "The winner passed judgment on the loser." In a museum on the shrine's grounds, there is a fully restored Mitsubishi Zero Type 52 fighter aircraft that a placard says made its combat debut in 1940 over Chongqing, then the wartime capital of the Republic of China. It was undoubtedly not an accident that, in Chongqing during the 2004 Asian Cup soccer finals, Chinese spectators booed the playing of the Japanese national anthem. Yasukuni's leaders have always claimed close ties to the imperial household, but the late Emperor Hirohito last visited the shrine in 1975 and Emperor Akihito has never been there.

The Chinese regard Yasukuni visits by the Japanese prime minister as insulting, somewhat comparable perhaps to Britain's Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi for a costume party. Nonetheless, Beijing has tried in recent years to appease Tokyo. Chinese President Hu Jintao rolled out the red carpet for Yohei Kono, Speaker of the Japanese Diet's House of Representatives, when he visited China last September; he appointed Wang Yi, a senior moderate in the Chinese foreign service, as ambassador to Japan; and he proposed joint Sino-Japanese exploration of possible oil resources in the offshore seas that both sides claim. All such gestures were ignored by Koizumi, who insists that he intends to go on visiting Yasukuni.

Matters came to a head in November at two important summit meetings: an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) gathering in Santiago, followed immediately by an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting with the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea that took place in Vientiane. In Santiago, Hu Jintao directly asked Koizumi to cease his Yasukuni visits for the sake of Sino-Japanese friendship. Seemingly as a reply, Koizumi went out of his way to insult Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Vientiane. He said to Premier Wen, "It's about time for [China's] graduation" as a recipient of Japanese foreign-aid payments, implying that Japan intended unilaterally to end its 25-year-old financial-aid program. The word "graduation" also conveyed the insulting implication that Japan saw itself as a teacher guiding China, the student.

Koizumi next gave a little speech about the history of Japanese efforts to normalize relations with China, to which Wen replied, "Do you know how many Chinese people died in the Sino-Japanese war?" Wen went on to suggest that China had always regarded Japan's foreign aid, which he said China did not need, as payments in lieu of compensation for damage done by Japan in China during the war. He pointed out that China had never asked for reparations from Japan and that Japan's payments amounted to about $30 billion over 25 years, a fraction of the $80 billion Germany has paid to the victims of Nazi atrocities even though Japan is the more populous and richer country.

On November 10, the Japanese navy discovered a Chinese nuclear submarine in Japanese territorial waters near Okinawa. Although the Chinese apologized and called the sub's intrusion a "mistake", Defense Agency director Ono gave it wide publicity, further inflaming Japanese public opinion against China. From that point on, relations between Beijing and Tokyo have gone steadily downhill, culminating in the Japanese-American announcement that Taiwan was of special military concern to both of them, which China denounced as an "abomination".

Over time this downward spiral in relations will probably prove damaging to the interests of both the United States and Japan, but particularly to those of Japan. China is unlikely to retaliate directly but is even less likely to forget what has happened - and it has a great deal of leverage over Japan. After all, Japanese prosperity increasingly depends on its ties to China. The reverse is not true. Contrary to what one might expect, Japanese exports to China jumped 70% between 2001 and 2004, providing the main impetus for a sputtering Japanese economic recovery. Some 18,000 Japanese companies have operations in China. In 2003, Japan passed the United States as the top destination for Chinese students going abroad for a university education. Nearly 70,000 Chinese students now study at Japanese universities, compared with 65,000 at US academic institutions. These close and lucrative relations are at risk if the US and Japan pursue their militarization of the region.

A multipolar world
Tony Karon of Time magazine has observed, "All over the world, new bonds of trade and strategic cooperation are being forged around the US. China has not only begun to displace the US as the dominant player in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization (APEC), it is fast emerging as the major trading partner to some of Latin America's largest economies ... French foreign-policy think-tanks have long promoted the goal of 'multipolarity' in a post-Cold War world, ie, the preference for many different, competing power centers rather than the 'unipolarity' of the US as a single hyperpower. Multipolarity is no longer simply a strategic goal. It is an emerging reality."

Evidence is easily found of multipolarity and China's prominent role in promoting it. Just note China's expanding relations with Iran, the European Union, Latin America and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran is the second-largest OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil producer after Saudi Arabia and has long had friendly relations with Japan, which is its leading trading partner. (Ninety-eight percent of Japan's imports from Iran are oil.) On February 18, 2004, a consortium of Japanese companies and the Iranian government signed a memorandum of agreement to develop jointly Iran's Azadegan oilfield, one of the world's largest, in a project worth $2.8 billion. The US has opposed Japan's support for Iran, causing Congressman Brad Sherman (Democrat, California) to charge that Bush had been bribed into accepting the Japanese-Iranian deal by Koizumi's dispatch of 550 Japanese troops to Iraq, adding a veneer of international support for the US war there.

But the long-standing Iranian-Japanese alignment began to change in late 2004. On October 28, China's oil major, the Sinopec Group, signed an agreement with Iran worth between $70 billion and $100 billion to develop the giant Yadavaran natural-gas field. China agreed to buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran over 25 years. It is the largest deal Iran has signed with a foreign country since 1996 and will include several other benefits, including China's assistance in building numerous ships to deliver the LNG to Chinese ports. Iran also committed itself to exporting 150,000 barrels of crude oil per day to China for 25 years at market prices.

Iran's oil minister, Bijan Zanganeh, on a visit to Beijing noted that Iran is China's biggest foreign oil supplier and said his country wants to be China's long-term business partner. He told China Business Weekly that Tehran would like to replace Japan with China as the biggest customer for its oil and gas. The reason is obvious: US pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear-power development program and the Bush administration's declared intention to take Iran to the UN Security Council for the imposition of sanctions (which a Chinese vote could veto). On November 6, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing paid a rare visit to Tehran. In meetings with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, Li said that Beijing would indeed consider vetoing any US effort to sanction Iran at the Security Council. The US has also charged China with selling nuclear and missile technology to Iran.

China and Iran already did a record $4 billion worth of two-way business in 2003. Projects included China's building of the first stage of Tehran's Metro rail system and a contract to build a second link worth $836 million. China will be the top contender to build four other planned lines, including a 30-kilometer track to the airport. In February 2003, Chery Automobile Co, the eighth-largest auto maker in China, opened its first overseas production plant in Iran. Today, it manufactures 30,000 Chery cars annually in northeastern Iran. Beijing is also negotiating to construct a 386-kilometer pipeline from Iran to the northern Caspian Sea to connect with the long-distance Kazakhstan to Xinjiang pipeline that it began building last October. The Kazakh pipeline has a capacity to deliver 10 million tons of oil to China per year. Despite US bluster and belligerence, Iran is anything but isolated in today's world.

The European Union is China's largest trading partner and China is the EU's second-largest trading partner (after the United States). Back in 1989, to protest the suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, the EU imposed a ban on military sales to China. The only other countries so treated are true international pariahs such as Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Even North Korea is not subject to a formal European arms embargo. Given that the Chinese leadership has changed several times since 1989 and as a gesture of goodwill, the EU has announced its intention to lift the embargo. Jacques Chirac, the French president, is one of the strongest proponents of the idea of replacing US hegemony with a "multipolar world". On a visit to Beijing in October, he said that China and France share "a common vision of the world" and that lifting the embargo will "mark a significant milestone: a moment when Europe had to make a choice between the strategic interests of America and China - and chose China".

In his trip to Western Europe in February, Bush repeatedly said, "There is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan." In early February, the House of Representatives voted 411-3 in favor of a resolution condemning the potential EU move. The Europeans and Chinese contend that the Bush administration has vastly overstated its case, that no weapons capable of changing the balance of power are involved, and that the EU is not aiming to win massive new defense contracts from China but to strengthen mutual economic relations in general. Immediately after Bush's tour of Europe, the EU trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, arrived in Beijing for his first official visit. The purpose of his trip, he said, was to stress the need to create a new strategic partnership between China and Europe.

Washington has buttressed its hardline stance with the release of many new intelligence estimates depicting China as a formidable military threat. Whether this intelligence is politicized or not, it argues that China's military modernization is aimed precisely at countering the US Navy's carrier strike groups, which would assumedly be used in the Taiwan Strait in case of war. China is certainly building a large fleet of nuclear submarines and is an active participant in the EU's Galileo Project to produce a satellite navigation system not controlled by the US military. The Defense Department worries that Beijing might adapt the Galileo technology to anti-satellite purposes. US military analysts are also impressed by China's launch, on October 15, 2003, of a spacecraft containing a single astronaut who was successfully returned to Earth the following day. Only the former USSR and the United States had previously sent humans into outer space.

China already has 500-550 short-range ballistic missiles deployed opposite Taiwan and has 24 CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a range of 13,000 kilometers to deter a US missile attack on the Chinese mainland. According to Richard Fisher, a researcher at the US-based Center for Security Policy, "The forces that China is putting in place right now will probably be more than sufficient to deal with a single American aircraft-carrier battle group." Arthur Lauder, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, concurred. He said the Chinese military "is the only one being developed anywhere in the world today that is specifically configured to fight the United States of America".

The US obviously cannot wish away this capability, but it has no evidence that China is doing anything more than countering the threats coming from the Bush administration. It seeks to avoid war with Taiwan and the US by deterring them from separating Taiwan from China. For this reason, China's pro forma legislature, the National People's Congress, passed a law this month making secession from China illegal and authorizing the use of force in case a territory tried to leave the country.

The Japanese government, of course, backs the US position that China constitutes a military threat to the entire region. Interestingly enough, however, the Australian government of Prime Minister John Howard, a loyal ally of the United States when it comes to Iraq, has decided to defy Bush on the issue of lifting the European arms embargo. Australia places a high premium on good relations with China and is hoping to negotiate a free-trade agreement between the two countries. Canberra has therefore decided to support the EU in lifting the 15-year-old embargo. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder both say, "It will happen."

The United States has long proclaimed that Latin America is part of its "sphere of influence", and because of that most foreign countries have to tread carefully in doing business there. However, in the search for fuel and minerals for its booming economy, China is openly courting many Latin American countries regardless of what Washington thinks. On November 15, President Hu Jintao ended a five-day visit to Brazil during which he signed more than a dozen accords aimed at expanding Brazil's sales to China and Chinese investment in Brazil. Under one agreement Brazil will export to China as much as $800 million annually in beef and poultry. In turn, China agreed with Brazil's state-controlled oil company to finance a $1.3 billion gas pipeline between Rio de Janeiro and Bahia once technical studies are completed. China and Brazil also entered into a "strategic partnership" with the objective of raising the value of bilateral trade from $10 billion in 2004 to $20 billion by 2007. President Hu said this partnership symbolized "a new international political order that favored developing countries".

In the weeks that followed, China signed important investment and trade agreements with Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile and Cuba. Of particular interest, in December, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela visited China and agreed to give it wide-ranging access to his country's oil reserves. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and normally sells about 60% of its output to the United States, but under the new agreements China will be allowed to operate 15 mature oilfields in eastern Venezuela. China will invest about $350 million to extract oil and another $60 million in natural-gas wells.

China is also working to integrate East Asia's smaller countries into some form of new economic and political community. Such an alignment, if it comes into being, will certainly erode US and Japanese influence in the area. In November, the 10 nations that make up ASEAN (Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), met in the Laotian capital Vientiane, joined by the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea. The United States was not invited and the Japanese officials seemed uncomfortable being there. The purpose was to plan for an East Asian summit meeting to be held next November to begin creating an "East Asia Community". Last December, the ASEAN countries and China also agreed to create a free-trade zone among themselves by 2010.

According to Edward Cody of the Washington Post, "Trade between China and the 10 ASEAN countries has increased about 20% a year since 1990, and the pace has picked up in the last several years." This trade hit $78.2 billion in 2003 and was reported to be about $100 billion by the end of 2004. As senior Japanese political commentator Yoichi Funabashi observed, "The ratio of intra-regional trade [in East Asia] to worldwide trade was nearly 52% in 2002. Though this figure is lower than the 62% in the EU, it tops the 46% of NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]. East Asia is thus becoming less dependent on the US in terms of trade."

China is the primary moving force behind these efforts. According to Funabashi, China's leadership plans to use the country's explosive economic growth and its ever more powerful links to regional trading partners to marginalize the United States and isolate Japan in East Asia. He argues that the United States underestimated how deeply distrusted it had become in the region thanks to its narrow-minded and ideological response to the East Asian financial crisis of 1997, which it largely caused. On November 30, Michael Reiss, the director of policy planning in the State Department, said in Tokyo, "The US, as a power in the Western Pacific, has an interest in East Asia. We would be unhappy about any plans to exclude the US from the framework of dialogue and cooperation in this region." But it is probably already too late for the Bush administration to do much more than delay the arrival of a China-dominated East Asian Community, particularly because of declining US economic and financial strength.

For Japan, the choices are more difficult still. Sino-Japanese enmity has had a long history in East Asia, always with disastrous outcomes. Before World War II, one of Japan's most influential writers on Chinese affairs, Hotsumi Ozaki, prophetically warned that Japan, by refusing to adjust to the Chinese revolution and instead making war on it, would only radicalize the Chinese people and contribute to the coming to power of the Chinese Communist Party. He spent his life working on the question "Why should the success of the Chinese revolution be to Japan's disadvantage?" In 1944, the Japanese government hanged Ozaki as a traitor, but his question remains as relevant today as it was in the late 1930s.

Why should China's emergence as a rich, successful country be to the disadvantage of either Japan or the United States? History teaches us that the least intelligent response to this development would be to try to stop it through military force. As a Hong Kong wisecrack has it, China has just had a couple of bad centuries and now it's back. The world needs to adjust peacefully to its legitimate claims - one of which is for other nations to stop militarizing the Taiwan problem - while checking unreasonable Chinese efforts to impose its will on the region. Unfortunately, the trend of events in East Asia suggests we may yet see a repetition of the last Sino-Japanese conflict, only this time the US is unlikely to be on the winning side.

(Source citations and other references for this article are available on the website of the Japan Policy Research Institute.)

Chalmers Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute. The first two books in his Blowback Trilogy - Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic - are now available in paperback.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC19Ad05.html

highsea
20 Mar 05,, 02:09
Barf.

(Sorry Ray, I'm not a fan of commie sympathisers)

Ray
20 Mar 05,, 02:22
Highsea,

Thank Heavens, it is only Barf and not Bromo Paper. :biggrin:

I am also no sympathiser of the Commies. But I am pragmatic.

As the Chinese proverb goes - Listen with your Head and not only with your Ears!

I am sure the Colonel would not know of this proverb.

Good news build complacency and over confidence.

Bad news puts you on guard and you are ready.

Praxus
20 Mar 05,, 02:33
"Chalmers Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute. The first two books in his Blowback Trilogy - Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic - are now available in paperback."

Wow sounds like a real believable guy. :rolleyes:

highsea
20 Mar 05,, 02:43
....Good news build complacency and over confidence.

Bad news puts you on guard and you are ready.This is true, and I appreciate it. I also try to be pragmatic. Chalmers Johnson is part of the Amy Johnson/Noam Chomsky crowd. Ex Berkely professor, ultra left radical, loves to bash the US and proclaim the virtues of communism. If he lived in any of the countries he loves so much, he would be imprisoned for writing such crap. Since he lives in America, he gets wealthy from it instead. Kind of like Michael Moore, but in a tweed suit with elbow patches and a pipe. Self proclaimed intellectual. Ugh. It's his type that send the Rachel Corries of the world to stand in front of Israeli bulldozers.

Such hypocrites give me heartburn. But it will pass, I think I will just overpower it with strong drink... ;)

Ray
20 Mar 05,, 03:08
I know about Noam Chompsky.

Wasn't too impressed with him when he came here. I thought he was a Communist. A bit too way out and rather radical.

I don't know about the others or even about which side each newspaper or TV stations tilt.

Commando
20 Mar 05,, 04:53
Even if China puts forward there largest level of conscription and amasses an army of 100-200 million men. The mighty Air force and navy of the USA and there well trained troops would still kick there ****. The USA is no force to be reckoned with at the moment. And i feel that Taiwan can defend itself against a Chinese attack. Taiwan=very impressive air force and well trained troops.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 05,, 13:35
My apologies, People,

#1 Daughter had a fever over the weekend and it didn't break for 72 hours (hospital visit and all, being a parent with worries ain't exactly fun).

Something just occurred to me. The Chinese will have an ecological problem akin to a nuke strike in the coming 20-30 years. The 3 Gorges Project is going to litterally redraw the face of China with impacts that would be unforeseen for decades, even centuries to come.

At the very least, this is going to affect 100 million people directly and all of China indirectly. A war is not in their interest, even a successful one, now or in the future.

MIKEMUN
21 Mar 05,, 13:45
My apologies, People,

#1 Daughter had a fever over the weekend and it didn't break for 72 hours (hospital visit and all, being a parent with worries ain't exactly fun).

Something just occurred to me. The Chinese will have an ecological problem akin to a nuke strike in the coming 20-30 years. The 3 Gorges Project is going to litterally redraw the face of China with impacts that would be unforeseen for decades, even centuries to come.

At the very least, this is going to affect 100 million people directly and all of China indirectly. A war is not in their interest, even a successful one, now or in the future.



Sorry about your daughter,Colonel. I hope she is recovering. On a different note, how do I get to your site?? I promise I'll behave. ;)

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 05,, 13:53
Sorry about your daughter,Colonel. I hope she is recovering. On a different note, how do I get to your site?? I promise I'll behave. ;)

She's fine right now though her daddy is a wreck. It's http://forum.china-defense.com but you will have to register to read it. Lack of bandwidth issue which means that we had to restrict access to those serious about the subject and takes the time to register (and we're still cracking 40 gigs a month).

Julie
21 Mar 05,, 14:21
She's fine right now though her daddy is a wreck. It's http://forum.china-defense.com but you will have to register to read it. Lack of bandwidth issue which means that we had to restrict access to those serious about the subject and takes the time to register (and we're still cracking 40 gigs a month).I would like to visit the site as well...probably not to post...but am very interesting in the read. Do you mind if I register as well? :)

Hope your daughter has a speedy recovery....alcohol swabbing all over the body does wonders for fever.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 05,, 14:29
Please do. The site is currently the largest deposit of English (and now some limited Chinese) articles and images (some faked but kept for historic assessement reasonning) on China in the world at the moment.

The one thing I do ask people to keep in mind is that we could be wrong. The War Zone Campaign thread is filled with mistakes but we keep them in there since it is necessary to know why we were wrong.

Also, we're not above keeping contravertial postings (albeit they have to be pilote about it). One of my biggest beef is against a retired USN Captain (full Colonel equivelent) ElCid. He may be an expert submariner but when it comes to land warfare, I was rolling my eyes.

Oh, btw, the site is 30 gigs big and is not well organized for so much data (we're trying to figure out a way to better organize it), so don't be overwhelmed.

#1 Daughter came out of this much better than daddy. Alcohol wipes? I need a damn scotch.

Julie
21 Mar 05,, 15:07
#1 Daughter came out of this much better than daddy. Alcohol wipes? I need a damn scotch.LOL...I can really relate to what you are saying. My husband never over-reacted when was son took ill (he's now 18), but when my daughter came along....my husband goes into what I call "panic mode," when she takes ill. The first encounter was when she was 2 and developed strep(?) throat, with a high fever that came upon her in a matter of minutes. One minute my husband was in the living room with my daughter, and the next minute, he was taking her outside and putting her in the car, him only in shorts, no shirt nor shoes. I ran outside to ask what was going on, and he said, get in, she has a fever, and I'm taking her to the emergency room. To this day, my husband still reacts in the same "panic mode" when she takes ill...and I find myself consoling him moreso than my daughter. :biggrin:

In these situations over the years, my husband has read and tried every home remedy available, from fevers, sprains, and cuts, as supplements and re-inforcements, if you will, to medications. Have you ever heard of tearing a brown paper bag into strips, soaking them in vinegar, putting them on a sprain, then wrapping an ace-bandage on top? Yes, that was even done by my husband, when my daughter fell skating and sprained her wrist.

Needless to say, it are times like those, that make me want to give my husband a shot of scotch, when Dr. Daddy is succumbed by his feelings of helplessness, when his #1 daughter takes ill. ;) It is really a site to see sometimes. ;)

The pediatrician says it is normal for daddys to respond in such a way, to their daughters. Because I asked him. :tongue:

Ray
21 Mar 05,, 20:11
Colonel,

Glad to know that your daughter is getting better.

I could finally log in today at CDF by using the link you posted. I had given trying to log in because there were always some error coming.

Confed999
23 Mar 05,, 00:23
#1 Daughter had a fever over the weekend and it didn't break for 72 hours (hospital visit and all, being a parent with worries ain't exactly fun).
As allways Sir, best wishes to you and your family...

bonehead
23 Mar 05,, 03:46
Officer of engineers.

I know just how you feel. My three kids have been playing "three card monty" with strep throat for the last few weeks.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 05,, 13:11
Parents are rushing in from Ottawa and Toronto as I type, making sure that we did a good job taking care of their precious granddaughter.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 05,, 13:27
I don't know about encirclement but the neighbourhood BBQ certainly ain't going to extend an invite




Bush Welcomes EU Decision on China

Tue Mar 22, 3:18 PM ET World - AP Asia


By BARRY SCHWEID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Renewing a U.S. demand that allies maintain an arms embargo on China, the Bush administration on Tuesday said it would welcome a European decision to reconsider the controversial issue.




Responding to reports attributed to European diplomats that a decision to authorize weapons sales was being reconsidered, State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said, "Certainly, if they were true, that would be good, that would be welcome."


He went on to say "we do not think the time is right for lifting the arms embargo on China. It would not send the right signal" and was not justified.


But Ereli said it was not aware of any direct confirmation from Europeans of the reports the embargo would be kept in place.


The allies are under pressure from the United States and also reacting to the toughened Chinese stance on Taiwan.


A European diplomat said Monday that at a minimum such weapons as night-vision goggles and submarine technology would not be sold.


Europeans have discussed a "code of conduct" designed to keep dangerous weapons out of China's hands.


The Bush administration maintains that the weapons could be turned against Taiwan as China attempts to assert its sovereignty over the island.


There also is strong opposition in Congress to arms sales to China.


President Bush (news - web sites) has sought to repair frayed relations with the Europeans in some areas, as differences over going to war with Iraq (news - web sites) recede, but remains determined to persuade the allies not to lift an embargo imposed after the bloody crackdown on Chinese dissenters at Tiananmen Square in 1989.


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) told the allies Sunday that they "should do nothing" that alters the military balance of power in Asia through the sale of sophisticated weapons.


At the same time, she is struggling to enlist China in a more vigorous effort to lure North Korea (news - web sites) to resume nuclear disarmament talks.


The Europeans had countered with an offer to put certain weapons out of China's reach, but even so, the European diplomat told reporters over lunch the allies had taken no final decision to proceed with arms sales.


Speaking on condition that he not be not be identified by name or country, the diplomat said Europeans had a right to sell China non-lethal weapons and so-called dual-use equipment capable of civilian and military uses.


Clarification of the latest European position is expected soon from the European Council in Brussels.


China's assertion that it would use military force if Taiwan formally declares independence has made it more difficult for the European Union (news - web sites) to lift an arms embargo on the mainland, Britain's foreign secretary said Sunday.


France and Germany have taken the lead toward lifting the embargo, because they want to let their weapons companies tap the Chinese market.





China passed a law this month codifying its intention to use military force against Taiwan should the island declare formal independence.

"Politically there are problems and these problems have actually got more difficult rather than less difficult, not least because there hasn't been much movement by China in respect of human rights," Jack Straw told Britain's ITV network.

"And for their own reasons they decided to pass this new law authorizing the use of force in the event of Taiwan seceding," he said. "So it's created quite a difficult political environment."

Lifting the embargo would allow sale of technology and weapons that China badly wants to modernize its creaky military.














http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...id=aj5iOePyceJ4


China Criticizes EU for Reconsidering Plan to Lift Arms Embargo

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- China criticized the European Union for reconsidering a plan to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo because China passed a law that would authorize war against Taiwan should the island declare independence.

``China's position is clear. The EU embargo is political discrimination,'' Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said in a statement posted today on the ministry's Web site. ``We hope the EU would stop this discrimination for the sake of honoring the 34th anniversary of EU-China ties.''

China's law passed last week is one of the elements that makes the process of lifting the arms embargo ``more complex,'' Cristina Gallach, a spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said yesterday. The time isn't right for opening the arms trade with China, Elmar Brok, chairman of the EU parliament's foreign affairs committee, said yesterday.

U.S. President George W. Bush, on the first visit by a U.S. leader to EU headquarters last month, lobbied the 25-nation bloc to keep the ban on weapons sales to China in place because of ``deep concern'' over an arms race on the Pacific rim. The EU imposed the arms embargo after China's crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 411-3 on Feb. 2, appealed to the EU to maintain the arms-sales curbs. Lawmakers from both parties argued that such sales could mean U.S. military forces might face European-made weaponry if called upon to defend Taiwan against an attack from the mainland.

No Timetable

A French-led campaign to lift the embargo, imposed after the violent Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989, ``remains the objective, but we cannot give a timetable,' Gallach said before a meeting of EU leaders yesterday in Brussels.

``There should be no withdrawal of the embargo because of the human rights situation in China and especially after the anti- secession law in relationship to Taiwan,'' Brok, a German Christian Democrat, said yesterday in Brussels. ``This is not the moment to open up the arms trade with China.''

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said last week the new law ``is not a war bill'' and isn't aimed at the Taiwanese people.

``The anti-secession law is meant to promote Cross-Strait relations and peaceful unification,'' Liu of the Foreign Ministry said in today's statement. ``It is not a war mobilization act. We hope all relevant parties would understand this and would support the peaceful reunification of China.''

China and Taiwan have been separately ruled since the 1949 civil war that saw the rise of the Communist Party on the mainland.

Rice Visit

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who visited China earlier this week, urged the EU to maintain its arms embargo against China, citing concern about a military buildup in the world's most populous nation.

The Chinese government said earlier this month it will boost military spending this year by 13 percent to $30 billion.

``Introducing a factor like lifting the embargo is not conducive to peace in the region,'' Rice said in Tokyo over the weekend during a weeklong trip to Asia. ``It might serve to alter the balance in an area where the U.S. has security interests.''

A European Union committee is working on replacing the embargo with a ``code of conduct'' governing technology transfers designed to reassure the U.S. that sensitive military equipment won't fall into Chinese hands. A draft of that code will be ready in April or May, Gallach said.

----With reporting by Emma Vandore, Rainer Buergin and James G. Neuger in Brussels. Editors: Ahlstrand, Tighe

Bill
23 Mar 05,, 15:15
It amazes me that we even have to convince the Euros that it's dumb to sell weapons to the chinese at all.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 05,, 15:36
It amazes me that we even have to convince the Euros that it's dumb to sell weapons to the chinese at all.
It amazes me that the Chinese keep shooting themselves in the foot. That idiotic law about invading TW certainly ain't going to help the EU ban any.

troung
02 Apr 05,, 20:39
Kind of funny who we let China uncircle itself in the first place... :mad:

lwarmonger
02 Apr 05,, 20:55
It amazes me that we even have to convince the Euros that it's dumb to sell weapons to the chinese at all.

Not really that dumb from their perspective. The big French and German foriegn policy goals are to assemble an EU under their banner to be another great power in the world, and to break American hegemony over much of the world (and I do realize that this is really over-simplified). Those weapons that the EU sells to China, will most likely never be used against Europe. America and it's allies will probably be the ones who have to do the fighting and dying to eliminate them.

Julie
02 Apr 05,, 21:48
Not really that dumb from their perspective. The big French and German foriegn policy goals are to assemble an EU under their banner to be another great power in the world, and to break American hegemony over much of the world (and I do realize that this is really over-simplified). Those weapons that the EU sells to China, will most likely never be used against Europe. America and it's allies will probably be the ones who have to do the fighting and dying to eliminate them.Excuse me, but that the be like the EU cutting it's nose off just to spite it's face, wouldn't it?

lwarmonger
02 Apr 05,, 21:58
Excuse me, but that the be like the EU cutting it's nose off just to spite it's face, wouldn't it?

Why? The US is the one who has to fight China (as Rice recently reminded the EU, the US is responsible for the defense of the Pacific, not Europe), and France and Germany wish the EU to become a great power in the world. Such a goal is achieved by the weakening of their greatest rivals, both future and present, and the better the Chinese can damage the US before being defeated, the closer the EU comes to matching the US. How would the EU selling weapons to China be damaging to it's long term strategic interests (America's certainly, but the EU's?)?

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 22:00
Why? The US is the one who has to fight China (as Rice recently reminded the EU, the US is responsible for the defense of the Pacific, not Europe), and France and Germany wish the EU to become a great power in the world. Such a goal is achieved by the weakening of their greatest rivals, both future and present, and the better the Chinese can damage the US before being defeated, the closer the EU comes to matching the US. How would the EU selling weapons to China be damaging to it's long term strategic interests (America's certainly, but the EU's?)?
You don't think any of the blame for a French missile shooting down a US plane would be aimed at France?

Julie
02 Apr 05,, 22:08
You don't think any of the blame for a French missile shooting down a US plane would be aimed at France?Don't tease me Confed....do you realize the position the US would take if that were to actually happen? LOL...gives me damn goosebumps just thinking about it. :biggrin:

troung
02 Apr 05,, 22:09
"You don't think any of the blame for a French missile shooting down a US plane would be aimed at France?"

No.

Remember the J-8D which crashed into the EP-3 and what type of missile it was carrying at the time?

The dumb thing is China REing the stuff they get sold. China bought 2 M-56 105mm mountain guns from Italy and then put a cheaper copy on the market. Some people never learn...

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 22:10
Don't tease me Confed....do you realize the position the US would take if that were to actually happen? LOL...gives me damn goosebumps just thinking about it. :biggrin:
Look at the positions Americans in general took just because France worked against the Iraq invasion.

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 22:14
No.
How about multiplied by 100? How about an aircraft carrier? There would be economic and political reprucsions to say the least, especially after all the press concerning the possible sales. The way I see it, much of Europe is extremely mercenary, and they're doing it for the bucks, not some hidden agenda of long term strategic interests.

lwarmonger
02 Apr 05,, 22:16
You don't think any of the blame for a French missile shooting down a US plane would be aimed at France?

Have the Russians ever gotten much concrete blame (ie actual punitive action) for the Soviet equipment that has been used to kill American soldiers? And would the US go to war with France over French equipment used against American troops? I don't think so. The French aren't popular over here anyways, and if the US was embroiled in a war with China, we would hardly pick a fight with Europe at the same time over where the Chinese weapons came from.

lwarmonger
02 Apr 05,, 22:21
The way I see it, much of Europe is extremely mercenary, and they're doing it for the bucks, not some hidden agenda of long term strategic interests.

Perhaps, but I see some consistant themes in French foriegn policy that have been taking place over the past 40 years that simple mercenary interests wouldn't explain. The creation of an independant nuclear deterrent, despite the considerable extra costs. The withdrawal from NATO, and the active encouragement of forming solely European connections. These, and indeed many other, examples seem to point to a coherant long term strategy by the French, that the Germans (with the demise of the Soviet Union) seem willing to go along with. Namely, the creation of a European superpower to challenge America. I don't think they will ever be that strong, but the French can dream, can't they?

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 22:36
And would the US go to war with France over French equipment used against American troops? I don't think so.
Who said war? Though they would likely lose any shipping enroute to or from China. That would be fair game. How well would they do with no safe exports to China or the USA?

I see some consistant themes in French foriegn policy that have been taking place over the past 40 years that simple mercenary interests wouldn't explain. The creation of an independant nuclear deterrent, despite the considerable extra costs. The withdrawal from NATO, and the active encouragement of forming solely European connections. These, and indeed many other, examples seem to point to a coherant long term strategy by the French, that the Germans (with the demise of the Soviet Union) seem willing to go along with. Namely, the creation of a European superpower to challenge America. I don't think they will ever be that strong, but the French can dream, can't they?
All things to allow them to be mercenary. Can't do as you please, certainly not the illicit stuff, when you're dependant on another. France withdrew from NATO?

troung
02 Apr 05,, 22:44
"How about multiplied by 100? How about an aircraft carrier? There would be economic and political reprucsions to say the least, especially after all the press concerning the possible sales. The way I see it, much of Europe is extremely mercenary, and they're doing it for the bucks, not some hidden agenda of long term strategic interests."

To be honest we are stopping no one from selling to China. Today we are at greater risk of losing planes to missiles supplied by one ally and we of course do nothing about it. This same "ally" also sells radars and other goodies.

So hell why wouldn't the Euros jump on the bandwagon?

----

And yes I am pissed about them selling to our "enemy"...

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 22:47
To be honest we are stopping no one from selling to China.
Well, we really can't force anyone not to.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 00:57
Who said war? Though they would likely lose any shipping enroute to or from China. That would be fair game. How well would they do with no safe exports to China or the USA?


They would still have safe exports to the US (the Chinese will be a very long in matching US abilities at sea), and the amount of trade conducted by France with China is minimal. The costs to the US would be far higher, and for a long term strategy that is what they should aim for.



France withdrew from NATO?

1966. NATO used to be headquartered in France, then they kicked us out.

Confed999
04 Apr 05,, 01:04
They would still have safe exports to the US (the Chinese will be a very long in matching US abilities at sea), and the amount of trade conducted by France with China is minimal. The costs to the US would be far higher, and for a long term strategy that is what they should aim for.
How would they resupply their Chinese allies? And why would we continue to trade with a country supplying the enemy? They lost trade with the US just on Iraq fallout.

1966. NATO used to be headquartered in France, then they kicked us out.
They are still in NATO though, they haven's withdrawn. I'm glad the HQ isn't in France. ;)

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 01:31
How would they resupply their Chinese allies? And why would we continue to trade with a country supplying the enemy? They lost trade with the US just on Iraq fallout.


They and the Chinese wouldn't be allied, and the French wouldn't try to resupply the Chinese. They would have been selling them weapons up to that point, however, and those weapons would make it that much more expensive for the US to win... thus weakening us to French benefit (a weaker US enables the EU to gain more influence in the world).



They are still in NATO though, they haven's withdrawn. I'm glad the HQ isn't in France. ;)

You are correct, I was wrong. However, they are really only a part of NATO in name only, as they are not in the command structure. Hence my misconception that they had withdrawn from the treaty itself as well. And the reason that they withdrew from NATO's command structure was because they felt that there was an anglo-American domination that was unacceptable (meaning that NATO wasn't French led :rolleyes: ).

Praxus
04 Apr 05,, 01:35
They and the Chinese wouldn't be allied, and the French wouldn't try to resupply the Chinese. They would have been selling them weapons up to that point, however, and those weapons would make it that much more expensive for the US to win... thus weakening us to French benefit (a weaker US enables the EU to gain more influence in the world).

That's a sick way to look at the world: "The US is too rich, we need to supply the c chinese with offensive weapons to kill Americans to reck the world economy, so they're on the same level as us".

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 01:48
The French would not mind a bit to see the US slip out of superpower status. I would bet my life on it.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 03:09
That's a sick way to look at the world: "The US is too rich, we need to supply the c chinese with offensive weapons to kill Americans to reck the world economy, so they're on the same level as us".

It's the way the world works. You have someone you don't like, but is too strong for you to take on directly, you give someone else the means to do it for you. Then your rival will become weaker, and you will gain at their expense. We did it to the Soviets in Afghanistan by supplying the Mujhadeen, the Soviets did it to us in Vietnam by supplying the NVA. It happens all the time, and we do it to others as much as they do it to us. Realpolitik works both ways.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 03:12
The French would not mind a bit to see the US slip out of superpower status. I would bet my life on it.

So would I. Even as we rescued them from the tender mercies of the Germans and helped them rebuild their economy, they resented the hell out of us. Now we are competition, and they will do their best to take us down a peg. Fortunately, we have a competent military that doesn't think the best way of fixing the enemy is giving them too many prisoners to deal with.

:biggrin:

Confed999
04 Apr 05,, 03:33
I still don't think it's a French conspiracy for domination...

troung
04 Apr 05,, 04:02
"Well, we really can't force anyone not to."

We have a harder time forcing another friend not to do business with them as well.

"The French would not mind a bit to see the US slip out of superpower status. I would bet my life on it."

This is just them (the EU) caving into their own arms companies who want sales.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 05:10
I still don't think it's a French conspiracy for domination...

I don't think the French are planning to dominate. But I do think they are planning to be a major player in a multi-polar world, and doing that requires the US to be reduced to merely great power (ie strong, but not dominant like we are now) status. Anything that weakens us brings them closer to that end. I don't think of it as a conspiracy, more as a long term goal... much like promoting democracy is a long term goal of the United States. And if our (or their) current interests coincide with that long term goal... so much the better.

Ray
04 Apr 05,, 15:35
It is not just the French, but also the UK who would benefit by the sale of weapons.

However, to believe that they would arm China with the most sophisticated weapons would be a trifle far fetched since it would not be in their interest to have a country that is more powerful than them.

I would go along with Julie that France is acutally cocking the snoot and no more.

lwarmonger
05 Apr 05,, 04:45
It is not just the French, but also the UK who would benefit by the sale of weapons.

However, to believe that they would arm China with the most sophisticated weapons would be a trifle far fetched since it would not be in their interest to have a country that is more powerful than them.

I would go along with Julie that France is acutally cocking the snoot and no more.

Well, we are each entitled to our own opinions, and I do understand your skepticism. However much of the rhetoric coming out of France, both now and in the past, seems to place them with a clear goal of becoming a power to rival the US (by leading the rest of Europe). De Gaulle was simply the most outspoken... much of France actions seem to combine mercenary self-interest with a great desire to spite the United States. France would not mind seeing the EU united under French leadership... I can say that much with confidence! What the rest of the EU desires is a different matter though.

And as for arming China... I cannot envision a situation where Chinese weapons would be employed against French (or non-Russian European for that matter) soldiers. There are a couple of scenarios, however, where such weapons could be used against American forces. Why wouldn't France arm China with some of it's best equipment? The Russians are already willing to sell first line fighters, and many of their tanks, at bargain basement prices. The French have to compete with that, and I don't think that they would have too many moral compunctions about doing so.

Enzo Ferrari
28 Apr 05,, 03:33
If French (or German) simply believe that selling advanced weapons to China, the greatest totalitarian in the world, in order to weaken American and "benefit" to the so called "intellectual" European will be simply the greatest retard thinking I've ever heard

Franco Lolan
28 Apr 05,, 05:02
I encourage you to read an article in the Current History journal on Asia of this year. Called "Rising Axis" or something of the sort. If you can't find it, remind me and I'll dig it up.

It's very good. Talks about connection between EU and PRC; particularly, France.

troung
28 Apr 05,, 06:04
From CDF

China, Indonesia look for ways to boost military ties

JAKARTA (AFP) Nov 05, 2004
Indonesia and China on Friday discussed defence cooperation, exploring ways for Jakarta to obtain new arms supplies as the Southeast Asian country struggles to rebuild military ties with Washington.
Visiting Chinese State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan said he had met with new Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, discussing broad bilateral issues including defence cooperation.

"We held talks on defence cooperation and we have agreed to increase cooperation and consultation on security," he told reporters.

The United States halted most military-to-military contacts with Indonesia after Jakarta's troops ran riot in East Timor during a 1999 independence vote. US legislators say abuses must be accounted for before ties can resume.

US officials have repeatedly expressed disappointment at the outcome of Indonesian tribunals to try military, police and civilian officials accused of atrocities linked to East Timor's violent separation from Indonesia.

Separately, Foreign Minister Wirayuda said Jakarta hoped from the talks China could "provide ways to help (us) rejuvenate our weaponry."

Tang, who is due to hold separate talks later with Vice President Yusuf Kalla, top security minister Widodo Adisucipto and foreign minister Hassan Wirayuda, said he was "satisfied" with his meeting with Yudhoyono.

President Hu Jintao's also extended an invitation for Yudhoyono to visit China, Tang said, adding that the two leaders could possibly hold separate bilateral talks at the November 22 to December 1 ASEAN summit in Laos.

Indonesia's relations with Beijing were put on ice after Jakarta accused the Chinese Communist Party of backing an abortive coup blamed on the Indonesian Communist Party in 1965.

In a sign of dramatically improved relations, former president Suharto, who rose to power after the coup attempt and outlawed communism in Indonesia, visited Beijing in 1991. Suharto stood down in 1998.

--------

South China Morning Post
April 26, 2005
Pg. 1

With eye to tanker safety, China is ready to help Indonesia rearm

Josephine Ma in Jakarta

China has offered arms sales and a raft of assistance to Indonesia in an attempt to cement its regional dominance and secure an ally for the smooth passage of its crude oil imports through the Malacca Strait.

President Hu Jintao , who began a two-day state visit to Indonesia yesterday, held talks with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and presided over the signing of a strategic partnership pact and a string of far-reaching co -operation agreements.

While Chinese officials have played down the countries' defence co-operation, Indonesian Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono told the South China Morning Post they had signed a memorandum of understanding on defence technology which involved arms sales by China and bilateral military co-operation.

He said Indonesia intended to buy light arms from China. Details of the deal would be hammered out when he visited China in July.

"We are planning to establish a joint mechanism to discuss the possibility of defence and security exchange of views, including possible military supply. It will be further developed in my possible visit to China in three months' time," Dr Juwono said.

Earlier reports said Indonesia, which is moving to rearm, had chosen China and Russia for military co-operation.

Dr Juwono said China was an ideal supplier for conventional weapons. He did not put a figure on Jakarta's arms purchases, saying both sides would discuss prices in the next couple of months.

He said China could benefit from military co-operation with Indonesia because it would help safeguard shipping in the Malacca Strait - a key conduit for China's trade. Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia jointly patrol the waterway, through which four-fifths of East Asia's crude oil supplies pass.

It is plagued by pirates and experts have pointed to the risks a terrorist attack on ships using the strait would pose for the region.

Mr Hu also said China intended to increase annual trade with Indonesia by half, to US$ 20 billion, within three years.

China is offering financial assistance in the form of US$ 300 million in preferential loans, as well as US$ 1.5 million to aid the rebuilding of the Aceh region devastated by the Boxing Day tsunami.

"This demonstrates not only that Sino-Indonesian relations have entered a new phase of development. It will also promote the development of China's relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ," Mr Hu said.


----------

So we are more or less losing them as a military ally of sorts. Actually kind of lost them since Timor and how wonderful that all went over those bloody 24 years after we partically talked them into going in :rolleyes:

Congress would not allow Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II to drop the military sanctions. So Presidents across party lines didn't want sanctions and past Presidents let them get away with a lot (murder) post 1965. They have moved more towards Russian equipment to make up for the sanctions.

But things are not as rosy as they look with China either. General Ryamizard Ryacudu (head of the very important Kostrad command) wanted China to rewrite the propasal for military aid because he didn't want Indonesia to be a little brother to anyone. And plus when thigns go bad in Indonesia they go after the local Chinese.

But China is breaking out the imaginary encirclement we are trying to place them under. As soon as Nixon opened them the American encirclement was done and over.

troung
30 Apr 05,, 22:49
CHINA VOWS $1.2-M MILITARY AID TO RP

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl101879.htm

BEIJING, March 3, 2005 (STAR) China has pledged military assistance to the Philippines for the first time, underscoring its rising influence in a region traditionally dominated by the United States.

The Philippines also said yesterday that a dispute with China over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea had been settled and the two sides would work together to exploit the region’s oil deposits.

"Disputes and conflicts are all over now," visiting Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo was quoted as saying by the Xinhua news agency.

"The South China Sea, instead of a regional flash point, has been transformed into an area of cooperation, peace and development," Romulo said.

China had promised 10 million yuan ($1.2 million or P66 million) worth of equipment, including engineering hardware, a source with knowledge of the deal said.

"We in the Philippines welcome China’s increasing role in regional and international affairs," Romulo said in a speech yesterday to mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Romulo ratified Tuesday a memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation signed last November, an embassy official said.

China, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam claim in whole or in part the oil-rich Spratly chain of islands and atolls in the South China Sea.

All the claimants, except Brunei, have troops stationed in the area and there have been deadly clashes in the past.

The most serious incident occurred in 1988, when Chinese and Vietnamese naval forces clashed at Johnson Reef, resulting in the deaths of 78 Vietnamese navy personnel.

Last year, China and the Philippines agreed to carry out a joint study of the mineral reserves in the area, sparking concern from the other claimants.

Vietnam warned that the joint study could violate a 2002 code of conduct signed by the claimants to refrain from actions that could disturb the volatile peace in the islands.

But Romulo indicated that matters had been settled, saying that his comment on disputes and conflicts "refers not only to China and the Philippines, but also others which claim the South China Sea territory."

In a statement issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in Manila, Romulo said he told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao "that we are determined to resolve the issue of the South China Sea through peaceful dialogue. I added that we also hope to negotiate and conclude a code of conduct in the South China Sea."

He said Sino-Filipino ties were at an all-time high and stressed the priority of economic development in the region.

"If there are conflicts, whether in the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula or Taiwan Strait, it is important for the countries in the region to bind together to have meaningful dialogue in the diplomacy," he was quoted as saying. "If we can preserve peace in the region, therefore we can get on with economic development."

Romulo also met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxiang. During this meeting, Romulo said he "expressed our strong support for the efforts of China to address the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula."

He and Zhaoxiang "also discussed a new area in our cooperation, that is, defense and military cooperation." Romulo heads to Thailand today before proceeding to Malaysia on Friday.

"China is the new big brother... but the US (United States) factor still remains," the source, who requested anonymity, told Reuters.

American troops pulled out of the Philippines, a former US colony, in 1992. But the two countries maintain close ties and US troops recently helped train Filipino forces in battling Muslim guerrillas in the south.

The US will remain "the dominant player" in the region, said Shi Yinhong, who teaches international relations at Beijing’s Renmin University.

In addition to military aid, China — until recently a recipient of foreign aid in the wake of natural disasters — had donated $250,000 to victims of typhoons that hit the Philippines last November and December, a Philippine Embassy newsletter said.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told Romulo on Tuesday he hoped both countries would improve cooperation, Xinhua news agency reported.

China exported its Communist revolution to Asian neighbors, including the Philippines, in the 1960s, but bilateral relations have improved in recent years and Chinese President Hu Jintao will visit the Philippines in April.

China and the Philippines will hold a security dialogue in Manila as early as April, a diplomatic source said.

When President Arroyo visited Beijing last September, a landmark agreement was signed enabling national oil companies from both countries to conduct marine seismic tests near disputed islands in the South China Sea.

China is also poised to invest in the Philippine mining industry.

A Philippine delegation, led by the environment and trade secretaries, held a mining road show in Beijing in January and said it had won investment pledges in nickel and other mining projects worth $1.3 billion. The Philippines posted a trade surplus of $4.79 billion with China last year, with exports jumping 43.6 percent to $9.06 billion and imports surging 38 percent to $4.27 billion.

Thanks to Chinese technological support, the Philippines will attain rice and corn self-sufficiency by 2006 and 2010. – AFP, Pia Lee-Brago

----
Further ending that "encirclement"...

Confed999
01 May 05,, 00:27
CHINA VOWS $1.2-M MILITARY AID TO RP

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl101879.htm

BEIJING, March 3, 2005 (STAR) China has pledged military assistance to the Philippines for the first time, underscoring its rising influence in a region traditionally dominated by the United States.
Wow! 1.2 million! Wait... They got, like, just shy of 4 billion from the US last year. ;)

troung
01 May 05,, 01:03
Wow! 1.2 million! Wait... They got, like, just shy of 4 billion from the US last year

Could just be the tip of the iceberg....

I think it is about 55 million in military aid we sent to the RP for the WOT last year. We had cut aid back after they pulled out of Iraq and China has seen that as an open door. So that is small to the 55 million but a start you might say. China has been offering them equipment for years. We also didn't support the RP in the Spratly issue leaving them isolated on their only reason to be anti China. Hell these days they have a trade surplus with China.

Read further they have also "bullied" the RP into joint development of the Spratly's. Also they have made friends with Thailand (used to be very anti China), Burma (no comment), Vietnam (border issues are done), are making progress in Laos, are pushing into Indonesia (we have them under sanctions), have made massive headway in Malaysia (Dr. Madhatter did say jews ran us and we cut their 1 million dollar joint training aid which they officially laughed at). And that's of course leaving out Pakistan, Bangeldesh, North Korea, Cambodia and others.

So really I don't see Communist China as being terribly encircled anymore. In fact Nixon more or less ended the encirclement from the pro American camp years ago. And China is stepping in and offering support as we pull back from these nations. We left Thailand rather open after the fall of Indochina and these days Thailand uses a lot of Chinese equipment alongside American equipment.

Confed999
01 May 05,, 01:28
Could just be the tip of the iceberg....

I think it is about 55 million in military aid
Probably the tip, China is growing, give 'em time. ;) Yeah the 4 bil is total aid from all government sources, wonder what China's is? Be interesting to know that too.

troung
05 May 05,, 03:41
Yeah the 4 bil is total aid from all government sources, wonder what China's is?

Maybe the 4.7 billion trade suplus. And China is helping them with aid (science related) to make them self reliant on food as well.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114913917156

Thailand plans to sign a barter deal with China to trade 66,000 tons (72,750 U.S. tons) of dried longan fruit for 133 Chinese-made armored personnel carriers, a senior official said Sunday.
Finance Minister Somkid Jatusripitak and his Chinese counterpart, Jin Renqing, are expected to ink the agreement in Bangkok early this month, said Gen. Samphan Boonyanun, adviser to the prime minister and a former defense minister.
Each carrier will be equipped with weapons and is worth about 17 million baht (US$431,000; 334,500), Samphan said, without elaborating.
Ninety-six of the personnel carriers will be allocated to the army, 24 to the navy and the rest will be used by police, he said.
The deal was initiated by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra when he met with his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, in China last June in an effort to find markets for longans, of which Thailand has an oversupply.

---------
--------

Thailand used to hate China. Things have changed and now the Thai army and navy have a good deal of Chinese military equipment.

The same thing could happen with the Philippines.

Go figure but I think it is time to free Burma. I doubt many Burmese would forget who supported the dicators over there...

Confed999
06 May 05,, 00:48
I think it is time to free Burma.
I'm in, but I'm allways in on those issues. ;)

troung
12 May 05,, 02:46
US to broaden ties with Southeast Asia, but not limit China: Zoellick
Tue May 10,10:26 AM ET

SINGAPORE (AFP) - The United States is intent on deepening economic and political ties with Southeast Asia but not by trying to contain China's rising influence in the region, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said.

On the last leg of a six-nation tour of Southeast Asia, Zoellick said he had also been reassured the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was committed to stronger economic ties with the United States.

Aside from Singapore, Zoellick, who is the most senior US official to visit Southeast Asia during US President George W. Bush's second term, visited Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.

"It would be very useful at the start of the president's second term to have a chance to consult with our partners and friends in the region," Zoellick told reporters here in explaining the purpose of his 10-day trip.

"And I think if there is any core theme, it's that we believe that it is in the broader Asian interest to have a strong, healthy, dynamic ASEAN.

"And in so far as we can help and support that process, we are looking for ways to try to do so and my visit is one small contribution."

Zoellick said discussions held with leaders during his trip showed Southeast Asia wanted to continue to have strong economic ties with the United States, which remains the region's major export destination.

"I think there is a sense that I received from the countries that I visited there is a very strong interest in US economic ties for many of these countries," Zoellick said.

"The countries I visited represent over 500 million people... so it's a core part of our global outlook."

Zoellick emphasised ASEAN was the fifth largest trading partner for the United States, with trade between the two worth about 136 billion US dollars.

However he also said the United States had no intention of trying to contain China's growing presence in Southeast Asia.

"From the US perspective, the key message is that we believe that we should have our own activist engagement with Southeast Asia and that a policy to try to limit or restrict China would be both foolish and ineffective," he said.

China and ASEAN last year signed a deal to liberalise trade barriers and pave the way for a more comprehensive accord planned for 2010 that could see the creation of the world's largest free trade zone.

Zoellick's visit also had strong political spin-offs, with the diplomat announcing while in Vietnam that Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai had been invited to meet Bush in Washington on June 21.

The visit will be the first by a Vietnamese leader since the end of the Vietnam War 30 years ago.

It was also announced that Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will meet with Bush in July.

Zoellick referred on Tuesday to maritime and counter-terrorism security issues that were discussed during his visit to the six nations, but did not broaden his comments from those given earlier in the trip.

In Malaysia, Zoellick offered US help to ensure security in the pirate-plagued Malacca Strait and oversaw the renewal of a 10-year-old defence pact between the two nations.

Zoellick also reiterated the United States' concern over the political situation in ASEAN member Myanmar, where opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house detention.

"We are very troubled by the events in Burma... the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi Kyi remains in detention, the lack of movement on democracy issues," he said, referring to Myanmar by its former name.

The other three members of ASEAN are Brunei, Cambodia and Laos.

-----

I like that thta President Bush's man called it "Burma" and not Myanmar.

-----

Well it looks like we are trying to counter China's moves in SE Asia. But our rep in some nations (Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia) has taken a little bit of a pounding already. Burma is more or less lost unless we take out the junta.

I think we might have lost the chance to get Thailand to start hosting anti Burmese junta guerillas like they used to. But doing such would put us proxying with China ;)

Doubtful but one can dream...

troung
13 May 05,, 07:14
Mon May 9,12:01 AM ET

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia and the United States renewed a military cooperation pact on Monday for 10 years, putting aside irritants which have bedeviled bilateral ties.

Mainly Muslim Malaysia, currently chair of the Non-Aligned Movement and an opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq two years ago, has had some problems with Washington over the past decade but military ties have grown closer.

The new agreement enables armed forces from the two countries to share logistics and supplies, a follow-up to close military team-work during relief operations for tsunami-hit Asia, the two sides said.

"The (agreement) enhances strong military-to-military cooperation between our two countries," U.S. Ambassador Christopher LaFleur told reporters at a signing ceremony.

Malaysian and U.S. militaries hold annual joint exercises and they cooperated closely in the unprecedented international military relief operation in Indonesia's Aceh province, which bore the brunt of the tsunami that swept Asia on Dec. 26.

U.S. forces used Malaysian air force bases as hubs for ferrying supplies to Aceh, off Malaysia's west coast.

The upturn comes after Malaysian-U.S. relations hit a rough patch in the late 1990s when Washington voiced support for former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, jailed on what he called trumped-up charges after leading anti-government protests.

More recently, diplomatic feathers were ruffled over a U.S. admiral's remarks that were construed as suggesting U.S. forces wanted to help police the Strait of Malacca, one of the world's busiest sea lanes, against possible terror attacks.

Malaysia has ruled out any foreign military participation in policing its waters, saying sovereignty is paramount. Washington later clarified that it had no intention to deploy forces there.

Monday's renewed Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement replaces a pact that expired in 2004. A Malaysian defense ministry official said the brief gap between the two agreements did not signify any difficulty in renewing the arrangement.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and Malaysian Defense Minister Najib Razak witnessed the signing in the Malaysian capital but made no comment to reporters.

Zoellick is on a six-nation Southeast Asian tour to discuss issues including counter-terrorism and security cooperation, trade, democracy and human rights. He is due to hold a news conference in Kuala Lumpur later on Monday.

troung
04 Jun 05,, 06:33
Badawi raps US-Japan view of China as threat
(Kyodo)
Updated: 2005-06-02 07:49

China is not a threat to the world, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Wednesday, while criticizing a joint statement by the United States and Japan earlier this year that paints China as one.

In a speech at an international security forum organized by the Malaysian Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Abdullah noted that China had, until recently, "never been openly declared a military threat or potential threat."

"Some countries may have quietly harbored that view -- however tenuous the grounds -- but none overtly described China as a potential threat," he said.

"This has now changed. For the first time, the United States and Japan have issued a joint statement declaring Taiwan a matter of mutual security concern," he said, referring to the statement issued by the two countries after a meeting in February of their foreign and defense ministers in Washington.

The Feb. 20 joint statement called for a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue as part of the two countries' "common strategic objectives" in the Asia-Pacific region.

It called for "the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait through dialogue" and urged China "to improve transparency of its military affairs."

The statement has been another point of contention in the already soured ties between Japan and China, for the latter views the inclusion of Taiwan in the parameters of the U.S.-Japan security alliance as a reneging on the "one-China" policy, giving the impression Japan would join the United States in defending Taiwan in case of an attack on the island.

"In my view, the strengthening of security and defense alliances in the Asia Pacific region is both unnecessary and destabilizing," Abdullah said. "It serves to provoke more than it reassures."

He said such action "may be understandable if there is a rising military power or coalition of military powers that will soon threaten the military supremacy of the existing hegemonic order."

"But this is not the case either, whether in the Asia Pacific or anywhere else in the world."

China, Abdullah said, has no hegemonic ambitions.

But the issue of Taiwan "remains the single most likely flashpoint for military confrontation," he said.

Abdullah, who visited Tokyo last week, expressed concerns over the deteriorating relationship between two of Asia's most powerful nations.

He suggested three approaches to the three obstacles he believes need to be overcome, namely history, politics and geography.

"Each side could make a special effort to understand and accommodate the concerns and grievances of the other party...A visit withheld, as well as a damage compensated will go a considerable way towards cooling emotions and mending relations," he said.

He was apparently alluding partly to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's controversial visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, where Class A war criminals are honored along with Japan's war dead.

Both parties should lay the past to rest as has been achieved in Europe, Abdullah said. "This would be easier if, on the one hand, narrow nationalist interpretations of history are not condoned, and on the other, there are no extreme and repeated demands for contrition," he said.

The Malaysian leader also suggested the use of "quiet diplomacy," with both sides refraining from using the media to air their disputes.

On Sino-Japanese territorial disputes, he said that if bilateral approaches fail, both sides should consider international arbitration.

---
Funny that the "China is not a threat" part is the story but not him pointing out that Europe had gotten past WW-2...

troung
04 Jun 05,, 06:45
Ties with China worries US think tank

First posted 09:14am (Mla time) June 03, 2005
By Volt Contreras
Inquirer News Service

A WASHINGTON-based think tank which last year described President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Southeast Asia's "weakest leader” now sees RP-US relations being "under significant strain” because of Manila's warming ties with China.

The Heritage Foundation conveyed this view in a forum it sponsored last month with Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo as guest speaker.

The Heritage website posted the following in its recap of the forum held last May 18 in Washington, DC.

The September 11, 2001 attacks sparked a renewed interest in the US-Philippines alliance. As both nations faced al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, the United States and the Philippines cooperated to improve the Philippines' military, law enforcement, and financial operations capabilities.

However, the alliance has come under significant strain of late because of Manila's new -- and unprecedented relationship -- with China as well as its decision to withdraw troops from Iraq early.

"In policy circles here (in Washington), the question is being raised: Can the US depend on the alliance any longer?" it asked.

It gave a scathing assessment of Ms Arroyo in October last year when she ordered the pullout of Filipino troops from Iraq to save Filipino truck driver Angelo dela Cruz held hostage by Iraqi militants.

The Foundation described Ms Arroyo as "the (Southeast Asian region's) weakest leader" for purportedly capitulating to terrorist demands.

The group's latest view on China came amid growing bilateral relations between Manila and Beijing.

The two countries are marking the 30th anniversary of their diplomatic ties this year, both saying they have entered a "new Golden Age” of partnership.

In April, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited the Philippines and endorsed investments and loans worth $1.6 billion to fund infrastructure and mining projects in the country.

A month later, Gen. Xiong Guangkai, deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army, arrived in Manila for a dialogue between top defense officials of both countries.

---
I guess we should have backed them during the 1990s when China was taking up reefs from them. A little late now to complain that they made peace...

EricTheRed
04 Jun 05,, 07:49
If we are lucky there will be a EU civil war. And of course the US would side with the british.

Leader
04 Jun 05,, 16:06
If we are lucky there will be a EU civil war. And of course the US would side with the british.

What are they going to fight with?

Confed999
04 Jun 05,, 17:33
What are they going to fight with?
If it's just with the military, it would be a short war.

Leader
04 Jun 05,, 17:37
If it's just with the military, it would be a short war.

I was thinking kitchen knives, but they are about to ban those too. :biggrin:

troung
06 Jun 05,, 05:33
Well more important then some fantasy of a EU civil war is the fact that China is not terribly encircled anymore...

Leader
06 Jun 05,, 05:37
Well more important then some fantasy of a EU civil war is the fact that China is not terribly encircled anymore...
Indeed. A Russia China Axis is quite disturbing. It is fun, however, to think of Europeans beating each other with sticks and rocks after they ban all guns and sharp objects.

troung
06 Jun 05,, 05:43
Indeed. A Russia China Axis is quite disturbing.

Well down in SE Asia they are making closer ties with our allies who we kind of left to the wolf so to say.

Selective
06 Jun 05,, 08:34
Im not saying China isnt making the effort but if they became the dominate ally of Indonesia within the near future ..I would be very surprised indeed. There are certain other countries that still have indonesia "by the balls" when it comes to national and foreign policy decisions.

troung
07 Jun 05,, 20:39
There are certain other countries that still have indonesia "by the balls" when it comes to national and foreign policy decisions.

You migth be suprised how much things have changed over there with the current crop of generals. And the getting Russian fighters/helicopters and such, looking at South Korean ships and subs and going to China actually reduces America's influence in the Indonesian military more and more.

----
US, Philippines discuss changes in military alliance
First posted 03:20pm (Mla time) June 07, 2005
Agence France-Presse

http://news.inq7.net/top/index.php?index=1&story_id=39523


Washington and Manila are discussing ways to adapt their 54-year-old military alliance to handle the "prevailing strategic situation" in Asia, the commander of US forces in the Pacific said Tuesday.

Admiral Thomas Fallon did not say what changes he expected to be implemented in the alliance, which since the September 2001 attacks in the US has led to US efforts to boost Manila's counter-terrorism capabilities.

Fallon led a US panel to Manila to begin two days of talks with Filipino military officials under the Mutual Defense Board, which conducts an annual review of the two countries' Cold War-era 1951 defense pact.

He said the two parties had agreed on a set of activities for the coming year, which in the past have included large-scale as well as small-unit joint military exercises.

Fallon did not spell out exactly what the activities were, but said they "would be relevant to increasing the capabilities and the capacities of the Philippine armed forces.".

The Philippines' military is currently fighting Islamic militants in the troubled south as well as decades-old rebellions from communist and Muslim separatists.

Fallon said the two panels had begun Tuesday a "strategic dialogue whereby we mutually looked at challenges in the region."

The two parties would look at "how we might incorporate the realities of the strategic situation today into the mutual defense treaty," he added.

Fallon said US and Filipino military officials agreed that a nuclear North Korea and tensions between rivals China and Taiwan were areas of concern that ought to be considered in the discussions.

Meanwhile, Filipino military chief General Efren Abu dismissed reports that scheduled joint military exercises to be held on Philippine territory over the next 12 months were in response to the growing military might of China. (does this mean that the Philippines is now considering to beef up its external defenses? -israeli)

"There are really no considerations when we select the (training) place. It's just a matter of transferring from one area to another," he added.

This post has been edited by israeli on Jun 7 2005, 06:58 PM

troung
09 Jun 05,, 05:34
http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GF09Ae03.html

Asia Times
June 9, 2005

June 9, 2005

Rumsfeld pitches in for F-16s
By Richard S Ehrlich

BANGKOK - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly tried to sell
F-16
warplanes capable of firing advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles
(AMRAAMs) to Thailand two days after he lashed out at China for
upgrading
its own military. F-16 sales to Thailand could profit US corporations,
such
as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Sechan Electronics Inc, and General
Electric,
which are involved in the warplanes' equipment, weapons and
maintenance.

When asked about Rumsfeld's reported sales-pitch, a tight-lipped US
Embassy
spokesperson said on Tuesday, "I can't confirm or deny what happened in
a
private meeting" between Rumsfeld and Thailand's defense minister.

According to the respected Bangkok Post, "Rumsfeld has offered to sell
an
undisclosed number of F-16 fighter jets to the air force on a 'special
condition', reportedly after becoming aware the [Thai] government was
studying other options, such as Russian-made [Sukhoi] SU-30s and
Sweden's
JAS-39s." Washington's sweetener for the deal may include allowing
Bangkok
to barter unidentified items for the F-16s, instead of paying the full
amount in cash.

Russia has already sold its Sukhoi warplanes to China, India, Malaysia
and
Indonesia. "The SU-30s cost approximately US$34 million each -
considerably
more than the F-16," the Washington-based Federation of American
Scientists
said.

Sweden, meanwhile, boasts that its JAS-39 Gripen warplane is a joint
project
by Saab Military Aircraft, Ericsson Microwave Systems, Volvo Aero
Corporation and Celsius Aerotech. The JAS-39 was constructed after
Sweden
scrutinized the US's F-16 and F-18 so the JAS-39's air-to-air missile
could
compete with America's Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Anxious not to lose money from arms sales to other nations, Rumsfeld
reportedly made his offer during private talks at Bangkok's Defense
Ministry
with Thai counterpart General Thammarak Ayudhaya on Monday.

On Saturday, however, Rumsfeld had blasted China for upgrading its
missiles
and other military technology. "Since no nation threatens China, one
wonders: why this growing [military] investment?" Rumsfeld asked in his
keynote speech at an Asian security conference in Singapore.

No nation currently threatens Thailand either, but next-door neighbor
Myanmar was denounced in January by US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice
as one of several "outposts of tyranny".

Myanmar was Thailand's worst enemy in past centuries, when the two
Buddhist
countries battled each other with elephant-riding armies, looting and
burning towns and cities and capturing each other's citizens as slaves.

Today, however, Thailand currently enjoys increasingly lucrative
commercial
relations with Myanmar, despite occasional skirmishes along their
border,
where guerrillas seeking independence - including some who smuggle
opium,
heroin and methamphetamines - battle Myanmar's troops. In the south, on
the
other hand, Thailand is fighting a losing battle against minority
ethnic
Malay-Muslim separatists.

America's F-16 warplanes belatedly patrolled the sky above Washington
and
New York after airborne Islamist attacks on September 11, 2001, and
during
subsequent false alarms. But Thailand has not experienced any air
assault by
Southeast Asia's Muslim guerrillas.

The US Army, mindful of the possibility, trained Thai forces in 2004
"to
secure an oil platform that was taken over by terrorists" in the Gulf
of
Thailand, where American and other foreign oil companies drill and
pump,
according to US Army Major General Stephen D Tom.

The training exercise, US Cobra Gold, was conducted "to reclaim a
platform
in the water, to take out and disarm and retake the tower for the
benefit of
the commercial establishment that owned it," Major General Tom said in
an
interview at the time.

Last year the US also delivered 30 refurbished Black Hawk helicopters
to
Thailand to help it fight Muslim militants in the south and guard
against
drug trafficking in the north.

In 2003, Washington had delivered at least eight AMRAAMs to Thailand to
arm
its 16 second-hand F-16 fighter jets, because of "an imminent threat"
posed
by Russian rockets offered to China and Malaysia, according to weapons
monitors. Cash-strapped Thailand earlier cancelled its purchase of
eight
F/A-18 warplanes in 1998 after Bangkok's bubble economy burst, fueling
a
regional economic crisis.

Richard S Ehrlich is a Bangkok-based journalist from San Francisco,
California. He has reported news from Asia since 1978 and is co-author
of
Hello My Big Big Honey!, a non-fiction book of investigative
journalism. He
received a master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School
of
Journalism.

(Copyright 2005 Richard S Ehrlich.)

hallo84
14 Jun 05,, 22:53
They have a whole airbase buried in a mountain now too, and they've also followed the NATO doctrine of using major highways to disperse and operate their aircraft.
And not operable when there is a war!
when were you last in taiwan? Taiwan chain of command is bizzar to say the least.
highways airstrips are not orgaized as the case in sweden. Taiwan does not have weapons or fuel storage near these areas thus meaning if any major airbases are attacked then there would be close to none of the Taiwan fight capable of taking off. Even if fighters are able to take off the lack of training in this area will prevent the effectiveness of this startegy. The average load and takeoff time for the ROCAF on highway was demonstrated to be 30min compared to the desired 10 min reaction time!


If the ROC forces catch wind that the Chinese are coming just 12 hours before they do(hiding a 100,000 man invasion force and thousands of warships and transports is obviously almost impossible), it's going to be the shortest amphibious invasion in the history of warfare IMO. ;)

No Taiwan would catch wind of chinese invasion after the initial missile attack be it ballistic or cuise missile. Anyforce left after has to deal with the incomming fighters. The PLA won't attempt a massive landing without substancial air superiority!


OOE, you got a current count on the number of SU-27s the Chinese have?
Personally i think you have shown that you know close to nothing about the chinese military!

Su-27 made in KnAAPO (russian made) delivered up to date 78
J-11 (Su-27) Shengyang production line (chinese made) 95
Su-30 MKK made in KnAAPO 76
Su-30MK2 made in KnAAPO 24
JH-7 20
J-8 ~240
J-10 2 regiment



all in all around 550 BVR capable fighters in PLAAF inventory
vs 400 ROCAF fighter. That puts PLAAF in favour counting that there would be less than 400 operable fighters in taiwan after the percision missile attack.


The SU's are the PLAAFs only aircraft that has the range to actually put a BVR capable CAP over Taiwan. All their other birds have short legs. The PLAAF's inflight refueling capability also sucks(as in it's practically non-existent), quite frankly.
Are you insane? Taiwan isn't some distant island far far away from China but rather right next to the eastern coastline! Taiwan is only about 100 mile off of the mainland! All chinese fighter can reach taiwan!



The PLAAF also doesn't have modern AWACS(Taiwan operates the E-2C), which is a huge problem as well.


Here is the only place where you are on the right track
But the Chinese are breacking these operational gaps quicker than you'd think... THey have 2 active AWACs programs and both have produced successful prototypes. The KJ200 and the Y-8 AEW.
the former based on IL-76 airframe and host chinese made phased array radar
and the latter being based on Y-8 airframe with balance beam electronically scanning phased array radar much like the the Swedish Saab 340 AWACS.


It's just that the deeper you dig into this, the more ridiculous the whole notion becomes with China's current force structure. There are a lot of aspects i havn't even gone into.
Because of your lack of insight and profound egoism!

Perhaps the Colonel will rehash some of the finer aspects of the Chinese WZC doctrine since you are obviously interested in learning more about the topic. He knows a hell of a lot more about this topic than me, and is probably one of the very top PRC experts i've encountered on the web. His Chinese heritage probably goes a long way toward explaining his fascination with the Worm. :)
Chinese docterine change all the time due to operatonal difficulties and the change in tactics due to modernization! The golf war being the prime learning curve for PLA on military planning and efficiency.

Just like the american who consider them true leaders of the world yet never remember to keep it to them selves.
May be you need to wonder why the gulf turned to such a hostile environment toward US and why the latin Americans are ever increasingly assertive of american presence!


NOTE: One other interesting tid bit that shows the US resolve to defend taiwan is that a US Aegis Warship is always on patrol in or around Taiwan. It would be hard not to get involved even if we tried when you take that into account.
Yet then never wonder into the Taiwan straights and stay well out of range of chinese missiles? hmmm... i wonder why?

hallo84
14 Jun 05,, 23:15
"but their political leadership is very astute and intelligent. "

Coulda fooled me Ray.


All i see is ignorance from you...

CCP is very cunning in that it focus public attention mainly on development and international affairs and defers the tention away from the dictatorship.

You know as well as I do that all people are fools in it that if life is good then there isn't much to worry about and besides who care what the governemnt does as long as we are not affected!!!

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 02:25
China is building up because they want to take that which is not theirs by force.

LOL wtf are you talking about???

Even Bush admits that Taiwan is a part of China...!

Have you been to taiwan???

In taiwan there are many factions of people.

There are the seperationalist, the in betweens and the unionists.

their numbers vary depending on age and other criteria but
honestly seperationalist only stand for 10-20% of the population that is also true for the unionists. Most of the people on the other hand is in between because they enjoy their democracy and way of life but does not want to be a US lap dog.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 02:30
Oh great, another damned civie know it all.

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 02:42
LOL, the delusion just keeps coming in never ending streams.

Is this board linked to militaryidiotsRus.com or something?

This is a political thread so use your head befor you make stupid comments
You are either very ignorant of whats going on around you or simply goof ball just mouthing off

Have you went to Wal-mart lately? have you noticed the number of products comming form China? Practically the whole store sells Chinese made products. Effectively this means that if US is considering a war of any sort with China, the US may take a huge blow on its own economy. These products may be cheap daily essentials but rather takes time to replace and made else where! Don't **** in your pants if you suddently find that your local markets don't have what you need anymore! Market economy don't really work if there is a deficiency in availability of products as it tends to drive up inflation and all sorts of nastly thing.

If you thik this is bad, let me remind you that China is the second largest holder of US debt. Consists of mostly pention bonds, security bond etc. Yes all you retired should consider yourself paid by the chinese government. China holds roughly 4000 billion worth of bonds in total! Simply playing with the american economy would drive any investor nuts!

So a war with China? highly unlikely no matter how highly you think of your military!

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 02:52
Barf.

(Sorry Ray, I'm not a fan of commie sympathisers)

i don't know what you think you are but I do think you should at least feel sorried for yourselves.

So what if some people believe in communism?
You talk about communism as if being a communist is commiting heresy or something...!!!

Doesn't it make you wonder at the level of bain washing that washington is commited to... even the communist could learn from you...lol

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 02:54
Get off it. You're the one charging in here uninvited. At the very least, you could have introduced yourself and from what background so that we know where you stand. As of right now, you're just an uninvited *******.

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 02:58
Get off it. You're the one charging in here uninvited. At the very least, you could have introduced yourself and from what background so that we know where you stand. As of right now, you're just an uninvited *******.


I thought this is a free forum and democratic at that or are you just pretending to be?
afraid when someone stand up against your remarks not just take the **** you through out?

I'm canadian by the way and as you can see not every canadian are standing proud besides the americans.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 03:09
This is not a free forum. This is private property. You're here at the courtesy of the forum owners, administrators, and moderators who holds some members at high esteemed and those high esteemed members include M21Sniper. We don't go charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard. We expect and demand the same courtesy here.

Yes, you're Canadian. My compliments. However, this is one Canadian Forces member who was more than proud to have served alongside, with, and under the command of the Americans.

Bluesman
15 Jun 05,, 04:02
OoE, my condolences that THIS is your countryman. We've got 'em, too, though. :frown:

Real piece of work, ain't he? Let's all point and laugh. :biggrin:

Leader
15 Jun 05,, 04:12
I thought this is a free forum

Yeah you don't have to pay for it.


and democratic at that

More like a benevolent dictatorship. ;) There are rules. Did you read them?


I'm canadian by the way and as you can see not every canadian are standing proud besides the americans.

:rolleyes: How insightful.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 04:16
OoE, my condolences that THIS is your countryman. We've got 'em, too, though. :frown:

Real shame, ain't it? Must be a Liberal.


Real piece of work, ain't he? Let's all point and laugh. :biggrin:

Did he dropped his pants?

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 04:51
This is not a free forum. This is private property. You're here at the courtesy of the forum owners, administrators, and moderators who holds some members at high esteemed and those high esteemed members include M21Sniper. We don't go charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard. We expect and demand the same courtesy here.

I quite understand that this is not a free forum and have read the rules! what i mean was that everyone have a right to express their ideas but M21Sniper seem to have nothing intellegent to say and rather smeer at what logical explanation is given to him!

Don't put word in my mouth... I didn't call him a ignorant bastard... i said he was ignorant of what's happening around him. Honestly he is a mouthy one isn't he?



Yes, you're Canadian. My compliments. However, this is one Canadian Forces member who was more than proud to have served alongside, with, and under the command of the Americans.
Yes I can repect that...and I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean every canadian or american for that matter suppotrs what washington is doint though.
But it seem this forum has a funny way of curbing their voices...

troung
15 Jun 05,, 04:55
Not another China can take Taiwan and beat the USA from a standing start...

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 05:05
I quite understand that this is not a free forum and have read the rules! what i mean was that everyone have a right to express their ideas but M21Sniper seem to have nothing intellegent to say and rather smeer at what logical explanation is given to him!

1st of all, both M21Sniper and I are former military and we had had this arguement about the ML-TW War crap over a 100 times and we each have more than 100 times explain how the internet views (which is all yours btw) are 100% completely wrong. An Operations Officer you are not. In fact, you're not even a PLA watcher. All the theories you've put forth were put forth by Western observers, not what the PLA has said and not what the PLA is saying. So, the fact that we feel smug about our answers is because in my case, I have studied the PLA for over 14 years.


Don't put word in my mouth... I didn't call him a ignorant bastard...

You're stuffing words into your own mouth. Where did I say you say that?


i said he was ignorant of what's happening around him. Honestly he is a mouthy one isn't he?

He's a WAB esteemed member, you are not. You do not have the privledge that he enjoys.


Yes I can repect that...and I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean every canadian or american for that matter suppotrs what washington is doint though.
But it seem this forum has a funny way of curbing their voices...

It's call standing up for what you believe. With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to argue ... and also the freedom to ignore. You're free to debate him and you're free to leave this forum but you are not free to act uninvited craplayer.

Leader
15 Jun 05,, 05:23
i mean was that everyone have a right to express their ideas

Privilege not right.


Doesn't mean every canadian or american for that matter suppotrs what washington is doint though.

You have created a very nice straw man there. Tell me who in this forum believes that "every Canadian or American for that matter supports what Washington is doing though?" If you can't find anyone, I suggest you stop repeating it as if you’re making a valid point.

troung
15 Jun 05,, 05:28
Yes I can repect that...and I'm fine with it. Doesn't mean every canadian or american for that matter suppotrs what washington is doint though.
But it seem this forum has a funny way of curbing their voices...

Seeing as no one here curbs me... :biggrin:

And I rarely agree with the others... ;)

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 05:30
1st of all, both M21Sniper and I are former military and we had had this arguement about the ML-TW War crap over a 100 times and we each have more than 100 times explain how the internet views (which is all yours btw) are 100% completely wrong. An Operations Officer you are not. In fact, you're not even a PLA watcher. All the theories you've put forth were put forth by Western observers, not what the PLA has said and not what the PLA is saying. So, the fact that we feel smug about our answers is because in my case, I have studied the PLA for over 14 years..

So what if you were in the military it does not make your point more right or mine wrong. How do you assume that I'm not a PLA watcher? That's the mistake of the internet because we cannot meet someone in person we automatically take assumptions...

CCP have no intentions of going to war and you know it... not because of operations capabilities but because it will damage hard earned trade and frankly Taiwan isn't worth it! So this explains why PLA ops for missiles to introduca a very reliable threat instead of going to war!
Yet we are having this argument about its effectiveness eventhough you have never been to or seen a PLA unit...your lack of insight to PLA based on your views of the west (my assumption)


You're stuffing words into your own mouth. Where did I say you say that?

you quote being "We don't go charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard. We expect and demand the same courtesy here." I'm assuming you mean i'm charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard


He's a WAB esteemed member, you are not. You do not have the privledge that he enjoys.

Now you make me wonder at the criteria it take to become a esteemes member...




It's call standing up for what you believe. With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to argue ... and also the freedom to ignore. You're free to debate him and you're free to leave this forum but you are not free to act uninvited craplayer.

Exactly what i'm doing but it seems this is your exclusive privledge

Leader
15 Jun 05,, 05:31
Seeing as no one here curbs me... :biggrin:

Who said you could speak? :biggrin:

troung
15 Jun 05,, 05:34
Who said you could speak?

Sorry I will lurk around until you guys need someone to agrue with... :frown:

I guess "Hallo84" will be my replacement... :biggrin:


CCP have no intentions of going to war and you know it... not because of operations capabilities but because it will damage hard earned trade and frankly Taiwan isn't worth it!

Taiwan is not "worth" it because of the lack of capability...

And the whole standing start invasion arguement is a joke. That is simply a recipe to fail...

Leader
15 Jun 05,, 05:37
Sorry I will lurk around until you guys need someone to agrue with... :frown:

I guess "Hallo84" will be my replacement... :biggrin:

LOL :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 05:45
So what if you were in the military it does not make your point more right or mine wrong.

It makes mine more realistic. I've humped mud for 8 months straight with a full pack. I know the limits of a soldier, of a company, of a battalion, of a brigade. I also know how my army expects a soldier to fight, a company to fight, a battalion, a regiment, and a brigade.


How do you assume that I'm not a PLA watcher? That's the mistake of the internet because we cannot meet someone in person we automatically take assumptions...

Because then, you would not have made the mistake of dismissing doctrinal development and what General Cao CaChuang had spent a decade developing. The WarZone Campaign is by far the most visionary doctrine in development since the People's War and you dismissed it out of hand.


CCP have no intentions of going to war and you know it... not because of operations capabilities but because it will damage hard earned trade and frankly Taiwan isn't worth it!

What a load of horse crap! A party capable of shooting its own civilians (twice in its history, 8 times if you include the Tibettan uprisings) would not be deter by trade.


So this explains why PLA ops for missiles to introduca a very reliable threat instead of going to war!

The conquest of Taiwan is a stated PLA mission, written in ALL its Defence White Papers. And the missiles belong to the Army, not the Air Force, nor the 2AC. By that context, it's not a terror weapon (reliable threat), it's a combat asset but I'll leave you to figure that one out.


Yet we are having this argument about its effectiveness eventhough you have never been to or seen a PLA unit...your lack of insight to PLA based on your views of the west (my assumption)

Based on writings like Generals Cao and Biao and my visits to the Beijing Garrison and Mess and visits to the 38th and 39th Group Armies. Also, based upon the former American Defence Attaches to Beijing, USArmy Colonel Dennis Blasko and USAF Colonel Ken Allen.

Lastly but not least, studying the tactical operations of the PLA and watching evaluating their exercise, the largest being in Sept of 2000.


you quote being "We don't go charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard. We expect and demand the same courtesy here." I'm assuming you mean i'm charging into your house calling you an ignorant bastard

We expect you to act and behave like a guest.


Now you make me wonder at the criteria it take to become a esteemes member...

Stay here long enough and have the backbone to take it as well as to give it.


Exactly what i'm doing but it seems this is your exclusive privledge

You're not debating. You're stomping.

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 05:48
You have created a very nice straw man there. Tell me who in this forum believes that "every Canadian or American for that matter supports what Washington is doing though?" If you can't find anyone, I suggest you stop repeating it as if you’re making a valid point.


Not a straw man...anyone that disagree you call commie sympathisers.

troung
15 Jun 05,, 05:59
Not a straw man...anyone that disagree you call commie sympathisers.

Well no one has ever called me one...

Leader
15 Jun 05,, 05:59
Not a straw man...anyone that disagree you call commie sympathisers.
A straw man is a type of logical fallacy in which you distort someone else's argument in order to defeat it. So yes you did create a straw man. Now that you have defeated an imaginary argument of your own creation, namely that others are arguing that all Canadians and Americans are supportive of Washington, you can take on a real one.

Are you in the habit of making things up? When did I call you a "commie symathiser?” You think I would have at least spelled “sympathizer” right when I did.

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 06:17
It makes mine more realistic. I've humped mud for 8 months straight with a full pack. I know the limits of a soldier, of a company, of a battalion, of a brigade. I also know how my army expects a soldier to fight, a company to fight, a battalion, a regiment, and a brigade.

Exacly proves you know what it takes to ba a good soldier...follow orders.



Because then, you would not have made the mistake of dismissing doctrinal development and what General Cao CaChuang had spent a decade developing. The WarZone Campaign is by far the most visionary doctrine in development since the People's War and you dismissed it out of hand.
The WarZone Campaign is based on a hi-tech limited warfare and developed in lue of americans in the gulf war. where did I dismiss it? I said the gulf war was a learning curve for the Chinese. I'm sorry as I read in chinese originals and don't relate to the translations that well and can sent you some if you read chinese...
I said the Chinese won't invade before achieving air superiority and won't be in the context like a normandy invasion but small fist units which i'm sure being a attach you got to see in action? There are many papers from the defence university that state the same




What a load of horse crap! A party capable of shooting its own civilians (twice in its history, 8 times if you include the Tibettan uprisings) would not be deter by trade..
... the CCP is changing and will continue to change and the representive figure of the old have all since retired. The CMC have mostly been refreshed. Their way of approaching Taiwan have also changed form the military threats of Premeir Jian to the hand and soft of Premeir Hu. With both the anti succession law and the historic visits of the opposition leader from Taiwan. Funny if you consider the KMT being the CCP's original foe during the civil war! People actually can protest the govenment in China as long as you don't make a big fuss out of it something that you could never have done in the past!


The conquest of Taiwan is a stated PLA mission, written in ALL its Defence White Papers. And the missiles belong to the Army, not the Air Force, nor the 2AC. By that context, it's not a terror weapon (reliable threat), it's a combat asset but I'll leave you to figure that one out.
I did say the missile of PLA not 2nd artil... and who ever said terror weapon can't be a combat asset too? Look at Taiwan media and you'll see that almost everyday there is something about the 700 Chinese missiles!


Based on writings like Generals Cao and Biao and my visits to the Beijing Garrison and Mess and visits to the 38th and 39th Group Armies. Also, based upon the former American Defence Attaches to Beijing, USArmy Colonel Dennis Blasko and USAF Colonel Ken Allen.

Lastly but not least, studying the tactical operations of the PLA and watching evaluating their exercise, the largest being in Sept of 2000.
You have your views and i have mine...




We expect you to act and behave like a guest.
Fine i'll try to be softer ...




Stay here long enough and have the backbone to take it as well as to give it.
I will... it'll take more than that to get rid of me...



You're not debating. You're stomping.
I appologize if i came on too hard!

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 09:42
Exacly proves you know what it takes to ba a good soldier...follow orders.

I retired with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. I was also a Brigade Operations Officer. I give orders. I organize combat at the brigade level. I also happen to be an expert at the Soviet and Chinese central planning at the regiment level. I can tell you what forces and and in what order they approach battle. Can you say the same?


The WarZone Campaign is based on a hi-tech limited warfare and developed in lue of americans in the gulf war. where did I dismiss it? I said the gulf war was a learning curve for the Chinese. I'm sorry as I read in chinese originals and don't relate to the translations that well and can sent you some if you read chinese...

Easy, when you say doctrines change quite frequently. They do not. It took well over a decade for the People's War to come into being. It stayed for decades. WZC is just being developed and it's going to stay for a long time.


I said the Chinese won't invade before achieving air superiority and won't be in the context like a normandy invasion but small fist units which i'm sure being a attach you got to see in action? There are many papers from the defence university that state the same

That's where also proves that you're not a PLA watcher. You don't know who to watch and who to ignore. The military academies are not the PLA. While very valuable in providing insight, they are not the basis for policy. The PLA was not, is not, and will not be an air superiority force. They are a guns army. They neither want nor need air superiority.


... the CCP is changing and will continue to change and the representive figure of the old have all since retired. The CMC have mostly been refreshed. Their way of approaching Taiwan have also changed form the military threats of Premeir Jian to the hand and soft of Premeir Hu. With both the anti succession law and the historic visits of the opposition leader from Taiwan. Funny if you consider the KMT being the CCP's original foe during the civil war! People actually can protest the govenment in China as long as you don't make a big fuss out of it something that you could never have done in the past!

The Democrazy Wall. The Hundred Flowers Campaign. Tianamen. Same crap, different day.


I did say the missile of PLA not 2nd artil... and who ever said terror weapon can't be a combat asset too? Look at Taiwan media and you'll see that almost everyday there is something about the 700 Chinese missiles!

1st, try 450 missiles and with the projection of 75 added per year. However, I have not seen any new batteries since last year and the expansion may have already be stopped.

And this proves again, you're not a PLA watcher. Army assets are never used as terror weapons. They're too valuable for something else.


You have your views and i have mine...

Mine happens to be supported by military experience (including combat) and study.


Fine i'll try to be softer ...

My thanks, it will make things alot easier and alot more fun.


I will... it'll take more than that to get rid of me...

This forum ain't for the feint of heart.


I appologize if i came on too hard!

It's not me you should be concern with.

hallo84
15 Jun 05,, 22:56
I retired with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. I was also a Brigade Operations Officer. I give orders. I organize combat at the brigade level. I also happen to be an expert at the Soviet and Chinese central planning at the regiment level. I can tell you what forces and and in what order they approach battle. Can you say the same?
Well given the condition of the Canadian army with lack of operational experience your knowledge is just as good as anyone else. When was the last time that canada was commit to a full scale campaign?


Easy, when you say doctrines change quite frequently. They do not. It took well over a decade for the People's War to come into being. It stayed for decades. WZC is just being developed and it's going to stay for a long time.
You have no sence of chinese mentaility as you say that because Chinese military are prone to not following "the Docterine" in practice! Regional Group armies tend to improvize due to operational difficulties and lack there of in equipement. Are these changes clearly wirtten in the docterine? No but they are widely accepyed and much talked about in chinese defence papers of which you blindly choose to ignore!
It took well over a decade for the People's War to come into being because of the cultural revolution and the halt on all progress including the military.
You have no sense of chinese military as being a foreigner you are only allowed to see what the CMC want you to see and have no real knowledge of what really happens in the PLA!



That's where also proves that you're not a PLA watcher. You don't know who to watch and who to ignore. The military academies are not the PLA. While very valuable in providing insight, they are not the basis for policy. The PLA was not, is not, and will not be an air superiority force. They are a guns army. They neither want nor need air superiority.

The central military university is where the WZC is cooked up in the first place!
The university is where chinese send their eliets to re-educate themselves as the low level of education in the army is proving to be insufficient. As you see in all high ranking officials most are required to undertake an university education. As these officer joins the force new concepts of engagement are employed. Are these tactics openly disscussed with a canadian soldier? well I surely hope not...


The Democrazy Wall. The Hundred Flowers Campaign. Tianamen. Same crap, different day.
When did that all happen? I remeber at the time america was all commited to the House on Un-American Activities Committee... and the communist heresy.

Who said america didn't murder its own students.

Just like the Kent State shootings...On May 14 of the same year Jackson State University shooting...whats the difference? The military is sent to shoot "violent" students on both accounts. Yet american government denies all account of responsibility and surprise surprise blame the student instead...

Its all the same crap if you ask me... I'm purely against these actions but it seems that these actions are not exclusive communist practice but rather have applications on a global scale.

If you ask me I'd take regional security as main objective and that is king of action needed during the Tianamen and the Kent State shootings. Just like what the americans call it ... for matters of national security.



1st, try 450 missiles and with the projection of 75 added per year. However, I have not seen any new batteries since last year and the expansion may have already be stopped.

And this proves again, you're not a PLA watcher. Army assets are never used as terror weapons. They're too valuable for something else.

There are 700+ as of now and this proves your inexperience in Chinese matters as you don't even follow recent media and yet you balbber on about past experience as if there is any relevance to the present.

The chinese recently did a crack down on Taiwan operatives in China because this 700 missile count was compromised and openly announced by Taiwanese president!

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 23:06
Well given the condition of the Canadian army with lack of operational experience your knowledge is just as good as anyone else. When was the last time that canada was commit to a full scale campaign?

What the hell? UNPROFOR, IFOR, KFOR, SFOR, ATHENA, We have seen more wars than the PRC, and per capita far more combat. I've certainly seen a hell of alot more combat then you and you presume to state that I don't know what I'm talking about?


You have no sence of chinese mentaility as you say that because Chinese military are prone to not following "the Docterine" in practice! Regional Group armies tend to improvize due to operational difficulties and lack there of in equipement. Are these changes clearly wirtten in the docterine? No but they are widely accepyed and much talked about in chinese defence papers of which you blindly choose to ignore!

Yeah right, how many CMC HQ are there?


It took well over a decade for the People's War to come into being because of the cultural revolution and the halt on all progress including the military.
You have no sense of chinese military as being a foreigner you are only allowed to see what the CMC want you to see and have no real knowledge of what really happens in the PLA!

Spare me! I've watched their exercises. I've seen the prep work. I've seen the intel. I saw the build ups. Yeah, just my imagination.

Know what? I ain't going to bother with the rest of your post. You're not going to last here for long. There are 8 others here with military experience and all have seen combat and all have gone through putting or readying for a deployment. I would suggest that you save yourself some hurt and leave this forum. You're going to be label a troll and I rather things depart on a nice note. However, that's your choice.

Moderators, just a red flag warning here.

Idiot is on my ignore list.

Bill
16 Jun 05,, 00:35
"Originally Posted by hallo84
Well given the condition of the Canadian army with lack of operational experience your knowledge is just as good as anyone else. When was the last time that canada was commit to a full scale campaign?"

How about showing the Colonel a little respect you godless communist heathen troll?

troung
16 Jun 05,, 01:10
Rather then banning the new token red (love how these guys live overseas) might as well crush his ideas then send him on his way... ;)

And M-21 you never fail to please... :)

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 05,, 06:21
Rather then banning the new token red (love how these guys live overseas) might as well crush his ideas then send him on his way... ;)

I've got over 25 gigs over at CDF doing exactly that. I no longer have the patience to explain to computer wargamers (Halo?) that they know squat.


And M-21 you never fail to please... :)

I rather think he make a very nice Field Marshall.

troung
16 Jun 05,, 06:40
I've got over 25 gigs over at CDF doing exactly that. I no longer have the patience to explain to computer wargamers (Halo?) that they know squat.

I've seen your work over there but still haven't had a chance to totally spend a chunk of time and totally wrap my brain around it :) ... been too busy wraping my brain on someother doctrines as well...

These topics on China and Taiwan make me think how many times me and M-21 would go into it with people like him explaining this same topic... I'm still mentallly tired from explaining myself over and over again from back then...


I rather think he make a very nice Field Marshall.

I had been waiting for him to show up... he is like the "attack dog" here... :biggrin:

Confed999
19 Jun 05,, 16:01
hallo84, you're so far out of your league, you can't even see the game...

Enzo Ferrari
20 Jun 05,, 12:41
Quote from hallo84
"When did that all happen? I remeber at the time america was all commited to the House on Un-American Activities Committee... and the communist heresy.

Who said america didn't murder its own students.

Just like the Kent State shootings...On May 14 of the same year Jackson State University shooting...whats the difference? The military is sent to shoot "violent" students on both accounts. Yet american government denies all account of responsibility and surprise surprise blame the student instead...

Its all the same crap if you ask me... I'm purely against these actions but it seems that these actions are not exclusive communist practice but rather have applications on a global scale.

If you ask me I'd take regional security as main objective and that is king of action needed during the Tianamen and the Kent State shootings. Just like what the americans call it ... for matters of national security."

Sorry for my ignorance, I remember that American government never used tanks or armour vehicles to attack, or even run over her people body in her entire history (correct me if I am wrong.)

Moron.

quicklogin
26 Jun 05,, 20:45
Just registered to say very strange board that you run here.

A supposed distinguished member in many threads gives out racist and offensive posts whilst a new member has a disagreement and is descended upon by the members friends, with quite laughable comments on the right son this board with assistence by a mod , who seem to turn a blind eye to hate promoting threads by other people

amazing

Leader
26 Jun 05,, 21:19
Just registered to say very strange board that you run here.

A supposed distinguished member in many threads gives out racist and offensive posts whilst a new member has a disagreement and is descended upon by the members friends, with quite laughable comments on the right son this board with assistence by a mod , who seem to turn a blind eye to hate promoting threads by other people

amazing

More like quickban.

Confed999
26 Jun 05,, 22:13
A supposed distinguished member in many threads gives out racist and offensive posts
I must have missed the racism. I'm going to err on the side of caution here...

hallo84
06 Jul 05,, 01:46
Sorry for my ignorance, I remember that American government never used tanks or armour vehicles to attack, or even run over her people body in her entire history (correct me if I am wrong.)

Moron.

No they didn't but when was the last time the chinese squashed someone with a tank?

Show me any real footage of someone actually squashed then you have a case! Not those phony films of someone blocking one or play pretend by standing beside one.

and american do use tank as a show of force on her own people!

LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM two armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood. The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered.

who's the moron now?

hallo84
06 Jul 05,, 02:11
What the hell? UNPROFOR, IFOR, KFOR, SFOR, ATHENA, We have seen more wars than the PRC, and per capita far more combat. I've certainly seen a hell of alot more combat then you and you presume to state that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Yeah and how many troops were involved? total only1,554 spread over how many countries? lets count the numbers
OP ACCIUS Afghanistan 1
OP ALTAIR Arabian Gulf/Persion Gulf 247
Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force OP ATHENA Afghanistan 950
OP FOUNDATION Tampa, Florida 7
United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) OP IOLAUS Iraq 1
that's in the whole gulf area...

NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) OP BRONZE Bosnia-Herzegovina 10
European Union Force (EUFOR) OP BOREAS Bosnia-Herzegovina 73


honestly even if 1500 man force were put together it consists of roughly one brigade . you are still ~10000 men short of a division...

since when can these war games/foreign aid/support the USA bash iraq show be considered major campaigns? A chinese exercise emplore more troops than that...


Yeah right, how many CMC HQ are there?


one but many regional HQ you clearly know nothing about...
How many regional MR are in china?

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 05,, 02:57
Yeah and how many troops were involved? total only1,554 spread over how many countries? lets count the numbers
OP ACCIUS Afghanistan 1
OP ALTAIR Arabian Gulf/Persion Gulf 247
Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force OP ATHENA Afghanistan 950
OP FOUNDATION Tampa, Florida 7
United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) OP IOLAUS Iraq 1
that's in the whole gulf area...

NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) OP BRONZE Bosnia-Herzegovina 10
European Union Force (EUFOR) OP BOREAS Bosnia-Herzegovina 73


IGNORANT A-HOLE! UNPROFOR at its height 3700. KFOR - 2600. Operation APOLLO at its height 5700. And that's half way across the globe!

Right now Operation ATHENA - 1800 (2 ships NOT on the list) soon to be 2700 on the ground - that's a combat brigade to you dim wit.



honestly even if 1500 man force were put together it consists of roughly one brigade . you are still ~10000 men short of a division...

since when can these war games/foreign aid/support the USA bash iraq show be considered major campaigns? A chinese exercise emplore more troops than that...

I will pit a Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (that's 6000 men in case you're wondering what a CMBG actually is) against ANY Chinese division anytime anywhere. That's how good we are.


one but many regional HQ you clearly know nothing about...
How many regional MR are in china?

7 MRs of which NONE will EVER assume command of any operation! Go back to your hole. In case you have not figured it out, you're not welcome here.

dalem
06 Jul 05,, 03:20
hallo-

You know, I had a clumsy post going that was part praise of Canadian contributions and part defense of their policies (not that it's my business to defend them), but in the end I've deleted all that and I will substitute the following:

Read OoE's posts and you just may learn something.

-dale

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 05,, 03:28
Read OoE's posts and you just may learn something.

He ain't going to learn squat. He grabbed that list straight off DND's website which do not include the naval and air components that are assigned to American commands.

Enzo Ferrari
07 Jul 05,, 07:15
"Show me any real footage of someone actually squashed then you have a case! Not those phony films of someone blocking one or play pretend by standing beside one.

and american do use tank as a show of force on her own people!

LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM two armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood. The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered.

who's the moron now?"

How many American people killed that day?

The masscare pictures in Beijing, 4th June, 1989.

http://www.64memo.com/index.asp

http://www.ngensis.com/june4/june4d.htm

http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/special/tiananmen/

http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/special/tiananmen/top.htm#

Okay, you know f__king all of Chinese politics.

So, Who's the moron now?

Wraith601
07 Jul 05,, 09:07
No they didn't but when was the last time the chinese squashed someone with a tank?

Show me any real footage of someone actually squashed then you have a case! Not those phony films of someone blocking one or play pretend by standing beside one.

and american do use tank as a show of force on her own people!

LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM two armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood. The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered.

who's the moron now?

More than likely those were LAPD LAV-150 derivative armored security vehicles than tanks. Your average reporter thinks any armored vehicle is a tank and anything more than a hunting rifle is a machine gun. Also circling the block a couple times is tad bit different from crushing and machine gunning demonstrators.

You have no case there.

As far as the Kent State and Jackson State shootings go that was a result of an escalating standoff between rather undertrained National Guardsmen and radical demonstrators. There was no sanctioned order from the federal government to use lethal force. Also you'll not those incidents were only limited engagements with small, though still tragic, losses. Tianamen Square is a whole other ballgame. Before you attack my credibility I'll inform I grew up 80 miles from Jackson, MS, where Jackson State is located in case you don't know, so I know a thing or two,

As far as the rest of your posts, I'll defer to the Colonel's unpralled expertise to crush your rantings.

Enzo Ferrari
07 Jul 05,, 10:24
Sorry may I post even more(sorry, mainly Chinese) pictural websites to this moron what the hell of Tiananmen massacre...

http://www.64memo.com/album/?Album=-8964&YMD=All

http://www.64memo.com/download/photo.asp

http://museums.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-7/29331.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-7/29333.html

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/repression.html

Wraith601
09 Jul 05,, 09:48
Yet again the forces of factual accuracy carry the day. Did someone ban this bothersome troll?

Enzo Ferrari
09 Jul 05,, 10:16
Even American may be "imperialism", even they cannot do that to their own people...

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/p54a1.jpg

Associate
11 Jul 05,, 03:04
Good News indeed. U.S. should really have a close eye upon china's evil militaristic ambitions. a Precautionary action is indeed a high Initiative.