U.S. Deploying Jets Around Asia to Keep China Surrounded

[cpwill]

Germany fears NSA stole industrial secrets | Europe | DW.DE | 03.07.2013

:lol: the worried musings of German businessmen overreacting to a news cycle without a shred of supporting evidence?

Even if they're wrong and they're not stealing industrial secrets, our government still spies on absolutely everybody.

Of course we spy on people - a global collections posture is a critical part of national security and reducing national command authorities uncertainty in international decision-making.

The benefit of this is debateable,

Not really. The U.S. intelligence community has returned incredible value added.

but turning around and saying "We should invade China for doing the exact same thing we're doing." is not only hypocritical, but it's rather telling of his character

If he is arguing that we should invade then it's equally telling of his level of awareness of the nigh-impossibility of that task.

If he is arguing that we should recognizes China as a geopolitical competitor who is not our friend, then he is, however, absolutely correct.

Translation: they're a nation that is beating us economically and doesn't suck our dicks like the rest of the world, and that makes you mad.

China isn't beating us economically. That's a common bugaboo I know, but it is about to be seriously readjusted. They aren't even as much of a threat to us economically as Japan was in the 80s.

That being said, no, "China beating us economically" =/= "a nation with the capability and intent to reduce American geopolitical security and frustrate our strategic goals". Perhaps you should try the google translator instead of doing it by hand.

Seriously, the neo-con belief that we should invade other countries simply to stay on top is dated and rather ridiculous. Why don't we just innovate or improve our economy instead?

seriously what is ridiculous here is your lack of reading comprehension. Please cite for me where I said that we should invade other countries simply to stay on top.

I'll be waiting for your explanation of what real threats they pose and not something you dreamed up in your bloodlust.

:roll: I live on Okinawa, Japan. If we go to war with China, among the first people to die will probably be my family. Take your hyperbole elsewhere or cease to be taken seriously.



Yeesh. Reagan save us from the conservative version of the college-know-it-all-hippy.

 

[Jango]

If he is arguing that we should recognizes China as a geopolitical competitor who is not our friend, then he is, however, absolutely correct.

Which I am. The other one is his delusion.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:lol: the worried musings of German businessmen overreacting to a news cycle without a shred of supporting evidence?



Of course we spy on people - a global collections posture is a critical part of national security and reducing national command authorities uncertainty in international decision-making.



Not really. The U.S. intelligence community has returned incredible value added.



If he is arguing that we should invade then it's equally telling of his level of awareness of the nigh-impossibility of that task.

If he is arguing that we should recognizes China as a geopolitical competitor who is not our friend, then he is, however, absolutely correct.



China isn't beating us economically. That's a common bugaboo I know, but it is about to be seriously readjusted. They aren't even as much of a threat to us economically as Japan was in the 80s.

That being said, no, "China beating us economically" =/= "a nation with the capability and intent to reduce American geopolitical security and frustrate our strategic goals". Perhaps you should try the google translator instead of doing it by hand.



seriously what is ridiculous here is your lack of reading comprehension. Please cite for me where I said that we should invade other countries simply to stay on top.



:roll: I live on Okinawa, Japan. If we go to war with China, among the first people to die will probably be my family. Take your hyperbole elsewhere or cease to be taken seriously.



Yeesh. Reagan save us from the conservative version of the college-know-it-all-hippy.

Another lame play on your part. You jump in defending someone demanding we invade China, then distance yourself from that when I lump you in with him. Whatever homie.

Which I am. The other one is his delusion.

Seriously? You're going to sit there and deny the fact that you've specifically called for war with China? This isn't a vague threat, as you told me, it's a very real threat that we MUST address.

 

[Northern Light]

U.S. Deploying Jets Around Asia to Keep China Surrounded | Killer Apps

China is a serious threat and should be treated as such. Though I understand why military men and politicians won't show all their cards, it'd be nice for those Americans who remain skeptical because an official of some sorts hasn't specifically said, "We're gearing up for War with China."

lol China is not a serious threat. If there is any military buildup it will be localized to their region. They've got us by the balls economically. Of all the reports on China's military and economy I've read over the past decade, there is no evidence to suggest that they are a threat to us or our allies. Their primary interest is in resource acquisition, not land expansion, and that takes them mostly to Africa.

I've visited China 4 times in the past 10 years and it's one of the most free places as I've ever been. As long as you aren't disrupting stability, you can do pretty much what you want. Their laws enforcement has more to do with practicality, whereas in the U.S. you are dealing with weird aristocratic, conservative and often machiavellian ideologies. The U.S. is not as free by comparison. When you come back to North America, there is nothing but hate for China in the media. The reason is that China, along with Russia, are the only places that the U.S. has zero dominion over. Everywhere else we've either invaded or somehow bended to our will.

That's why I laugh whenever I read these scaremongering articles and listen to their accompanying demagogues. They are just mouthpieces of the U.S. government's utter hatred for China's evasion of our will.

 

[cpwill]

Another lame play on your part. You jump in defending someone demanding we invade China, then distance yourself from that when I lump you in with him. Whatever homie.

Is that your backhanded way of admitting you goofed, and acted like an arrogant cuss?

Seriously? You're going to sit there and deny the fact that you've specifically called for war with China? This isn't a vague threat, as you told me, it's a very real threat that we MUST address.

In the Chinese sense, our two nations are already at a low-level of war. But you seem to have confused "conflict" with "invasion".

 

[cpwill]

Which I am. The other one is his delusion.

Given the apparent immediate assumption that anyone who comes to different conclusion than he does is a hateful blood-thirsty warmonger who wants to see people killed for no particular reason, that does not exactly astonish me.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Is that your backhanded way of admitting you goofed, and acted like an arrogant cuss?

In the Chinese sense, our two nations are already at a low-level of war. But you seem to have confused "conflict" with "invasion".[/FONT][/COLOR]

This is one of the stupidest statements I've ever read on DP. Nobody is shooting at each other, nobody is dying at each other's hands. We're trading openly, talking, and respecting treaties. Already at war.... What a bunch of bull****. Yes, that brutal economic conflict we're leading. You know, the one where we get insanely cheap products from them. If you've got beef with the situation, stop buying Chinese products.

Yeah, not a good reason for a conflict/invasion/war, or whatever you're envisioning.

:lol: the worried musings of German businessmen overreacting to a news cycle without a shred of supporting evidence?

Still more credible than the worried musings of neo-cons fantasizing about invading China.

And by the way, you apparently haven't even spent 30 seconds to read through some of this thread. If you had, you wouldn't be pulling this "nobody is trying to invade China" bull****.

The OP made it very clear:

China intends to knock us off our perch. I'd rather not see that happen. I'd rather see the U.S. remain numero uno, you know? So, encircling China, and being all threatening like, while saying we're not being threatening like, is what's in store for the foreseeable future, as we will undoubtedly safeguard our position in the world with everything we've got, as we very well should.

We need to invade them because they're beating us economically. Such sound logic. Even better, CPWill, you don't even agree that they're beating us economically.

 

[cpwill]

This is one of the stupidest statements I've ever read on DP. Nobody is shooting at each other, nobody is dying at each other's hands. We're trading openly, talking, and respecting treaties. Already at war.... What a bunch of bull****.

Not at all. But, then, you would have to have the dimmest of understandings of how the Chinese view conflict to understand that, and it is rather clear you do not.

Yes, that brutal economic conflict we're leading. You know, the one where we get insanely cheap products from them. If you've got beef with the situation, stop buying Chinese products.

That's not my problem with the Chinese at all. My problem (inasmuch as it is a problem - it isn't personal) is that A) they are an abusive and dictatorial regime that brutally mistreats their people and B) they also happen to be a nation with the capability and intent to reduce American geopolitical security and frustrate our strategic goals.

Yeah, not a good reason for a conflict/invasion/war, or whatever you're envisioning.

We are already in conflict, the question becomes whether or not it is going to become kinetic.

Still more credible than the worried musings of neo-cons fantasizing about invading China.

:shrug: perhaps. If you could tell us where to find these neo-cons claiming that we should invade China, I shall join you in deriding that position. But neither that person nor cited German businesses would make what you would call "an authoritative source" on what's going on. Your claim that the U.S. is engaging in lending its' computer network operations capabilities to its' corporations in order to gain an economic edge in innovation remains unsupported.

And by the way, you apparently haven't even spent 30 seconds to read through some of this thread. If you had, you wouldn't be pulling this "nobody is trying to invade China" bull****.

The OP made it very clear:

China intends to knock us off our perch. I'd rather not see that happen. I'd rather see the U.S. remain numero uno, you know? So, encircling China, and being all threatening like, while saying we're not being threatening like, is what's in store for the foreseeable future, as we will undoubtedly safeguard our position in the world with everything we've got, as we very well should.

We need to invade them because they're beating us economically. Such sound logic. Even better, CPWill, you don't even agree that they're beating us economically.

Perhaps you need to google "Define"+"Encircle" and then "Define"+"Invade". It seems that your third grade english teacher has failed you, and you are left sadly bereft. What the author seems to be referring to is our growing defense relationships with the South East Asian nations, along with our ongoing relations with Japan, and Australia, and our intent to improve relations with India. But please. Don't let me stop you from accusing others of being psychopaths simply because that A) flies on a ron paul forum and B) is easier than thinking.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Not at all. But, then, you would have to have the dimmest of understandings of how the Chinese view conflict to understand that, and it is rather clear you do not.



That's not my problem with the Chinese at all. My problem (inasmuch as it is a problem - it isn't personal) is that A) they are an abusive and dictatorial regime that brutally mistreats their people and B) they also happen to be a nation with the capability and intent to reduce American geopolitical security and frustrate our strategic goals.



We are already in conflict, the question becomes whether or not it is going to become kinetic.



:shrug: perhaps. If you could tell us where to find these neo-cons claiming that we should invade China, I shall join you in deriding that position. But neither that person nor cited German businesses would make what you would call "an authoritative source" on what's going on. Your claim that the U.S. is engaging in lending its' computer network operations capabilities to its' corporations in order to gain an economic edge in innovation remains unsupported.



Perhaps you need to google "Define"+"Encircle" and then "Define"+"Invade". It seems that your third grade english teacher has failed you, and you are left sadly bereft. What the author seems to be referring to is our growing defense relationships with the South East Asian nations, along with our ongoing relations with Japan, and Australia, and our intent to improve relations with India. But please. Don't let me stop you from accusing others of being psychopaths simply because that A) flies on a ron paul forum and B) is easier than thinking.

The way the Chinese view conflict? What does that have to do with you deciding China is this humongous threat?

Frustrate our strategic goals? We've spent the past 70 years setting up an empire throughout the world, all in the name of egocentricity, and they haven't even really tried to stop us at any stage in this. What I think you meant was not sucking our dick like the rest of the world does.

If what you said is true, about you and your family being in mortal danger if a war with China would break out, I would think you would be more concerned about your family and not your nation's pride. That's what all of this comes down to: Pride. It's pure arrogance. We have them surrounded with bases, aircraft, a navy, and soldiers, yet THEY are the aggressive, threatening ones. Unreal.

And China isn't a dictatorship, it's a plutocracy. You know, kind of like we have. Our politicians stay in office forever and do basically whatever they want too.

Which I am. The other one is his delusion.

No you're not. You never called them a competitor, you called them a threat. A competitor would be what they really are, a threat is what you've fantasized them into being.

Don't let me stop you from accusing others of being psychopaths

Sorry, people that want to start wars where millions will die, all in the name of pride or to "keep our spot on top of the world" are psychopaths. Whether that applies to you is entirely up to you.

 

[cpwill]

The way the Chinese view conflict? What does that have to do with you deciding China is this humongous threat?

1. I didn't say "humongous". If you are going to try to actually debate people without looking like a hyperbolic and hyperactive college hippy activist, you may want to try debating what they say rather than creating exaggerated strawmen.

2. The West tends to view conflict through the lens of Clausewitz - War is Politics by Other Means and so on. China follows the same rough philosophy, but without the "by other means" qualifier.

Frustrate our strategic goals? We've spent the past 70 years setting up an empire throughout the world, all in the name of egocentricity, and they haven't even really tried to stop us at any stage in this.

That is not accurate, although they have only attained the ability to make good on their intent (Capability + Intent = Threat) in the last decade or so.

What I think you meant was not sucking our dick like the rest of the world does.

:roll: If you think the rest of the world sucks our dick you haven't been paying attention.

If what you said is true, about you and your family being in mortal danger if a war with China would break out, I would think you would be more concerned about your family and not your nation's pride. That's what all of this comes down to: Pride. It's pure arrogance. We have them surrounded with bases, aircraft, a navy, and soldiers, yet THEY are the aggressive, threatening ones. Unreal.

:roll: so, no. You don't have the ability to think rationally about this or discuss it in anything in other than hyperbolic apocalyptic terms that attempt to mask your lack of understanding with personal attacks on those with whom you disagree, even when it is pointed out to you how very deeply wrong those attacks are.

I'll admit, I'm disappointed. You are (well, you have been) better than that.

And China isn't a dictatorship, it's a plutocracy. You know, kind of like we have. Our politicians stay in office forever and do basically whatever they want too.

No, China is a dictatorship.

No you're not. You never called them a competitor, you called them a threat. A competitor would be what they really are, a threat is what you've fantasized them into being.

you are discussing two non-contradicting items. virtually by definition threats are competitors.

Sorry, people that want to start wars where millions will die, all in the name of pride or to "keep our spot on top of the world" are psychopaths. Whether that applies to you is entirely up to you.

Can you demonstrate anyone in this thread calling for starting a war where millions would die in the name of pride or to keep our spot on top of the world? Anyone at all? Please cite for me the person in this thread who has said that we should invade China.

Because the last time you attempted to do so you seem to have confused the word "encircle" with "invade", indicating that perhaps you were reacting hyper-emotionally rather than rationally.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

1. I didn't say "humongous". If you are going to try to actually debate people without looking like a hyperbolic and hyperactive college hippy activist, you may want to try debating what they say rather than creating exaggerated strawmen.

2. The West tends to view conflict through the lens of Clausewitz - War is Politics by Other Means and so on. China follows the same rough philosophy, but without the "by other means" qualifier.



That is not accurate, although they have only attained the ability to make good on their intent (Capability + Intent = Threat) in the last decade or so.



:roll: If you think the rest of the world sucks our dick you haven't been paying attention.



:roll: so, no. You don't have the ability to think rationally about this or discuss it in anything in other than hyperbolic apocalyptic terms that attempt to mask your lack of understanding with personal attacks on those with whom you disagree, even when it is pointed out to you how very deeply wrong those attacks are.

I'll admit, I'm disappointed. You are (well, you have been) better than that.



No, China is a dictatorship.



you are discussing two non-contradicting items. virtually by definition threats are competitors.



Can you demonstrate anyone in this thread calling for starting a war where millions would die in the name of pride or to keep our spot on top of the world? Anyone at all? Please cite for me the person in this thread who has said that we should invade China.

Because the last time you attempted to do so you seem to have confused the word "encircle" with "invade", indicating that perhaps you were reacting hyper-emotionally rather than rationally.

Man... You're just too god damn lazy to read through this thread, aren't you?

China intends to knock us off our perch. I'd rather not see that happen. I'd rather see the U.S. remain numero uno, you know? So, encircling China, and being all threatening like, while saying we're not being threatening like, is what's in store for the foreseeable future, as we will undoubtedly safeguard our position in the world with everything we've got, as we very well should.

Of course it's stupid, but intel is intel. Sun Tsu set the rhetorical standard. And of course the cyberintrusions are going to escalate. They have thus far. I suspect with our continued physical movements, China will lash out even more. They're not going to be surrounded and do nothing about it.

He's suggesting we provoke them into an armed conflict. But hey, I'm not going to sit here and debate what has already been said, seeing as how if you took 30 seconds to read for yourself instead you'd know about it.

You haven't proven intent in that little equation of yours. So far they've shown zero intent to attack us in any way, so wrong again.

So you're saying China views politics as war, so that's how you're trying to say that they want war with us? Because they are engaging in politics with us? That doesn't make any sense.

You're trying to harass China into a conflict, that is starting a war. What do you think WE would do if China had us surrounded militarily and were acting as threatening as we are right now? They're tolerating things we would never tolerate, because apparently they care more about peace than we do.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for proof that China is aggressive or a threat in any way. All you've done is throw out wild conjecture about how "dangerous" they are without providing any kind of proof whatsoever. You were probably a big fan of the Iraq invasion. All they had were unsubstantiated rantings like you have.

 

[cpwill]

Man... You're just too god damn lazy to read through this thread, aren't you?

Not at all. But it seems that you are too lazy to deal intellectually with what is actually posted, vice fantasy strawmen.

Let me know when you decide to google up the difference between "encircle" and "invade", or at least admit that you mischaracterized your opposition.

He's suggesting we provoke them into an armed conflict.

Actually, no. He was stating that our increased alliances with other Asian nations would probably result in increased Chinese Computer Network Operations. You appear to continue to lack the willingness or ability to read what is written, and respond to it, rather than to tilt at windmills made of imaginary bloodthirsty psychopaths.

But hey, I'm not going to sit here and debate what has already been said, seeing as how if you took 30 seconds to read for yourself instead you'd know about it.

Especially considering how you apparently didn't take the time to read it in the first place

You haven't proven intent in that little equation of yours.

I tell you what. Go google "Chinese intention to dominate the first island chain" (you don't know what the first island chain is, yet, but you will shortly.

You'll notice that a lot of stuff like: "Chinese officials made clear that nation’s intentions to militarily dominate not only the near shore areas but most of the inhabited Western Pacific ocean as well." starts popping up.

You can also look up "China Anti-Access Area Denial Strategy"

So far they've shown zero intent to attack us in any way, so wrong again.

On the contrary, they have already attacked us on a multitude of fronts, again, you are mistaking "direct kinetic confrontation" for "warfare", which is a very ethnocentric thing for you to do, but a fallacy where the Chinese are concerned.

So you're saying China views politics as war, so that's how you're trying to say that they want war with us? Because they are engaging in politics with us? That doesn't make any sense.

No. They see us in conflict because our national interests are inimical, and so their actions are designed specifically to reduce American power, harm America's ability to project force, break up our alliances, deny us guaranteed access to the worlds' sea-lanes, kill American servicemembers, exhaust the American populace, and a number of other things inimical to our interests (for example, getting rid of the dollar as the international means of exchange).

You're trying to harass China into a conflict, that is starting a war.

No.
1. China is extremely unlikely to start the kind of war you are imagining because the U.S. has a series of alliances with Japan, the Philippines, a relationship with ASEAN, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or a growing (fitful) mil-to-mil relationship with India. China stands more to lose from that than we do, and they are very aware of that fact. 3Gen conflict is not impossible (The CCP could make a series of strategic miscalculations, and the drivers that would cause them to do so may become stronger in the near to mid future), but it is very unlikely.

2. We are already in conflict with China, one that takes place in a number of venues, cyber being not least among them. Even if I wanted conflict with China, it would be pointless to harass them at this point because we are already there.

3. Me supporting a policy of harassing China into a no-kidding kinetic 3GW conflict with the United States would be - as I have already pointed out - not only suicide for myself, but the death of my wife and children. When your assumptions regarding the opposition leave you in the position of accusing people of wanting to kill off their own kids, you may wish to reconsider whether or not your vituperative accusations of monstrous immorality are valid.

What do you think WE would do if China had us surrounded militarily and were acting as threatening as we are right now? They're tolerating things we would never tolerate, because apparently they care more about peace than we do.

:lol: really? things like what?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for proof that China is aggressive or a threat in any way.

take a gander at the above. If you have follow - on questions, let me know and I'll do my best.

All you've done is throw out wild conjecture about how "dangerous" they are without providing any kind of proof whatsoever.

I like how you put "dangerous" in quotation marks, as though I had ever said that they were dangerous. Searching the thread, however, you will note that I never did, and that once again you are putting words into the mouth of your opposition because tilting at strawmen is apparently easier for you than thinking.

You were probably a big fan of the Iraq invasion. All they had were unsubstantiated rantings like you have.

Er, no. Even with the guiding benefit of hindsight, it is impossible to accurately re-assemble the evidence available to the U.S. Intelligence Community in 2002 to provide the assessment that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD production programs and/or stockpiles. We found out later that even Saddam, apparently, thought that he had programs that were defunct, weapons that had degraded past usefullness.




You know how when our left-leaning-ladies try to tell you what it's like to be in the infantry in the should-women-be-in-the-grunts debates, and accuse you of sexism when you try to point out some basic realities to them? That's what you look like in this thread, dude. You're spinning crap out of your ass and launching ad hominems against people who have a better idea of what they are talking about.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Not at all. But it seems that you are too lazy to deal intellectually with what is actually posted, vice fantasy strawmen.

Let me know when you decide to google up the difference between "encircle" and "invade", or at least admit that you mischaracterized your opposition.



Actually, no. He was stating that our increased alliances with other Asian nations would probably result in increased Chinese Computer Network Operations. You appear to continue to lack the willingness or ability to read what is written, and respond to it, rather than to tilt at windmills made of imaginary bloodthirsty psychopaths.



Especially considering how you apparently didn't take the time to read it in the first place



I tell you what. Go google "Chinese intention to dominate the first island chain" (you don't know what the first island chain is, yet, but you will shortly.

You'll notice that a lot of stuff like: "Chinese officials made clear that nation’s intentions to militarily dominate not only the near shore areas but most of the inhabited Western Pacific ocean as well." starts popping up.

You can also look up "China Anti-Access Area Denial Strategy"



On the contrary, they have already attacked us on a multitude of fronts, again, you are mistaking "direct kinetic confrontation" for "warfare", which is a very ethnocentric thing for you to do, but a fallacy where the Chinese are concerned.



No. They see us in conflict because our national interests are inimical, and so their actions are designed specifically to reduce American power, harm America's ability to project force, break up our alliances, deny us guaranteed access to the worlds' sea-lanes, kill American servicemembers, exhaust the American populace, and a number of other things inimical to our interests (for example, getting rid of the dollar as the international means of exchange).



No.
1. China is extremely unlikely to start the kind of war you are imagining because the U.S. has a series of alliances with Japan, the Philippines, a relationship with ASEAN, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or a growing (fitful) mil-to-mil relationship with India. China stands more to lose from that than we do, and they are very aware of that fact. 3Gen conflict is not impossible (The CCP could make a series of strategic miscalculations, and the drivers that would cause them to do so may become stronger in the near to mid future), but it is very unlikely.

2. We are already in conflict with China, one that takes place in a number of venues, cyber being not least among them. Even if I wanted conflict with China, it would be pointless to harass them at this point because we are already there.

3. Me supporting a policy of harassing China into a no-kidding kinetic 3GW conflict with the United States would be - as I have already pointed out - not only suicide for myself, but the death of my wife and children. When your assumptions regarding the opposition leave you in the position of accusing people of wanting to kill off their own kids, you may wish to reconsider whether or not your vituperative accusations of monstrous immorality are valid.



:lol: really? things like what?



take a gander at the above. If you have follow - on questions, let me know and I'll do my best.



I like how you put "dangerous" in quotation marks, as though I had ever said that they were dangerous. Searching the thread, however, you will note that I never did, and that once again you are putting words into the mouth of your opposition because tilting at strawmen is apparently easier for you than thinking.



Er, no. Even with the guiding benefit of hindsight, it is impossible to accurately re-assemble the evidence available to the U.S. Intelligence Community in 2002 to provide the assessment that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD production programs and/or stockpiles. We found out later that even Saddam, apparently, thought that he had programs that were defunct, weapons that had degraded past usefullness.




You know how when our left-leaning-ladies try to tell you what it's like to be in the infantry in the should-women-be-in-the-grunts debates, and accuse you of sexism when you try to point out some basic realities to them? That's what you look like in this thread, dude. You're spinning crap out of your ass and launching ad hominems against people who have a better idea of what they are talking about.

Ok, I see we just keep rehashing the same points over and over again so there really isn't any point in us continuing. And frankly I'm sick of the ridiculously hyperbolic "I don't want to start a war, we already ARE at war with China." like statements.

You see China as this big threat that we should deal with, and I don't. Luckily only the most fringe of the republican party believe like you do, and most of America believes like I do. Most of America doesn't see China as a threat at all, and is sick of war and sick of our meddling overseas. It's time to focus on our economy instead of running around the world with imperialistic dreams of grandeur.

Good day.

 

[cpwill]

Ok, I see we just keep rehashing the same points over and over again so there really isn't any point in us continuing. And frankly I'm sick of the ridiculously hyperbolic "I don't want to start a war, we already ARE at war with China." like statements.

:shrug: as they understand it, we are - and we are fools if we do not study those who think they are in conflict with us, and act accordingly. The last time we ignored such a group they flew planes into our buildings. We've made similar mistakes with China, even, mistaking their willingness to engage in combat operations in the Korean peninsula in the 50s because we did not believe what they were telling us about how they perceived our relations, but rather chose to engage in an overly-optimistic assumption that they didn't want conflict and so we wouldn't have any.

You see China as this big threat that we should deal with, and I don't.

No, I see China as a serious threat that we should and are dealing with. "Big"? Hmm.. depends on how you use the phrase. They have Big Capability, but Middle Intent. I see people who react to that reality (which both sides recognize, which is why both sides have the cyber efforts that both sides do) by hyperbolicaly insisting that there is no position between "complete neutrals" and "invading China" (what the heck do you think we were with the Soviet Union for decades? BFF?) as acting like an international relations intellectual combination of this lady:

and this guy:

Luckily only the most fringe of the republican party believe like you do, and most of America believes like I do

If by "only the most fringe of the republican party" you mean "a solid bi-partisan consensus of the leadership of both parties", then yes. Because this right here?:

...encircling China, and being all threatening like, while saying we're not being threatening like, is what's in store for the foreseeable future

That is what we are doing currently, and we are going to continue to do that under whomever takes over after Obama, be it Hillary or Biden, Chris Christie or Rand Paul.

It wasn't the first Bush administration that announced the Pivot to Asia, after all - it was the Obama administration.

Most of America doesn't see China as a threat at all, and is sick of war and sick of our meddling overseas

Most of America is definitely tired of hearing stories about foreign policy - that is true. That is partly a result of a successful effort by the PRC to enable other actors to keep us involved in places that would be wearing - as Hammes points out, the Chinese invented 4GW, it's hardly astonishing they would use it against us when doing so is so solidly within their interests. That tiredness is also probably part of why we are following the path you would advocate in Syria - the result being now more than 100,000 killed, chemical weapons being unleashed against civilians in a never-ending, bloody civil war.

It's time to focus on our economy instead of running around the world with imperialistic dreams of grandeur.

Unfortunately our economy is deeply tied into the global economy, meaning that we have no choice but to exert influence over events overseas if we are to attempt to enable economic stability at home.

Good day.

Peace to you.

 

[cpwill]

Ok, I see we just keep rehashing the same points over and over again so there really isn't any point in us continuing. And frankly I'm sick of the ridiculously hyperbolic "I don't want to start a war, we already ARE at war with China." like statements.

You see China as this big threat that we should deal with, and I don't. Luckily only the most fringe of the republican party believe like you do, and most of America believes like I do. Most of America doesn't see China as a threat at all, and is sick of war and sick of our meddling overseas. It's time to focus on our economy instead of running around the world with imperialistic dreams of grandeur.

Good day.

But perhaps you can tell me. Are you willing to concede that there are serious definitional differences between "encircle" and "invade"?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:shrug: as they understand it, we are - and we are fools if we do not study those who think they are in conflict with us, and act accordingly. The last time we ignored such a group they flew planes into our buildings. We've made similar mistakes with China, even, mistaking their willingness to engage in combat operations in the Korean peninsula in the 50s because we did not believe what they were telling us about how they perceived our relations, but rather chose to engage in an overly-optimistic assumption that they didn't want conflict and so we wouldn't have any.

Bahaha, 9/11 was the result of ignoring a group of people? Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with our warring, empire building, and bombings all throughout the middle east. It was all because we ignored them! They just hate our freedom, huh?

And I'd like to see links where China has declared war or "conflict" on the US.

If by "only the most fringe of the republican party" you mean "a solid bi-partisan consensus of the leadership of both parties", then yes. Because this right here?:

I'd like to see the solid consensus that we are in conflict with China.

Most of America is definitely tired of hearing stories about foreign policy - that is true. That is partly a result of a successful effort by the PRC to enable other actors to keep us involved in places that would be wearing - as Hammes points out, the Chinese invented 4GW, it's hardly astonishing they would use it against us when doing so is so solidly within their interests. That tiredness is also probably part of why we are following the path you would advocate in Syria - the result being now more than 100,000 killed, chemical weapons being unleashed against civilians in a never-ending, bloody civil war.

We have a pretty decent relationship with China, and both of our economies rely heavily on each other. We trade pretty freely and openly. If you think you're being duped, stop buying their products. Throw out your cellphone and TV.

Unfortunately our economy is deeply tied into the global economy, meaning that we have no choice but to exert influence over events overseas if we are to attempt to enable economic stability at home.

Yeah, and so the great idea would be to provoke China, which our economy deeply relies on, into a war. That's a win-win for everybody, huh?

But perhaps you can tell me. Are you willing to concede that there are serious definitional differences between "encircle" and "invade"?

You have both phrased it many ways other than encircle in this thread, but really, there isn't much of a difference between encircle and invade when even the OP believes what we're doing will provoke a war.

 

[cpwill]

Bahaha, 9/11 was the result of ignoring a group of people?

Indeed. They declared war, we didn't take them as seriously as we should have.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with our warring, empire building, and bombings all throughout the middle east. It was all because we ignored them! They just hate our freedom, huh?

They do indeed hate our liberties (which they consider to be libertine); as anyone who has ever read their literature will be able to tell you (I'd recommend you start with Sayyid Qutb's "The America I Have Seen"). The Great Satan isn't simply a slogan - it's a realistic depiction of how they see America. Satan in Islam is not the neo-manichean figure with horns and hooves that features in some some of the common Christian conceptions, but a whisperer in the night, a tempter. Our liberties and freedoms and exercise of them tempt Muslims and Muslim nations into leaving Islam (as they see it), which makes us the Great Satan of the day.

And I'd like to see links where China has declared war or "conflict" on the US.

Then you should start reading through translations of the papers presented at their defense universities and speeches made by their leadership at the same to audiences both foreign and domestic - it would do you a world of good and perhaps you might even learn a thing or two. For example, if you had done what I suggested several posts above and looked up China's intentions towards the First Island Chain, that would have demonstrated to you precisely what you are asking for here.

I'd like to see the solid consensus that we are in conflict with China.

Have you really never heard of the Pivot to Asia? Of Bush's attempts to build better relations with India? Are you really unaware of the 1995 Taiwan Strait Crises? Of our treaties with Japan and the Philippines? Of our commitments to Taiwan? The policy that YOU described as psycopathic blood-thirsty warmongering is one that has been pursued now by both parties for two decades.

We have a pretty decent relationship with China, and both of our economies rely heavily on each other. We trade pretty freely and openly

Yeah.... You know who else had pretty heavy trade between them? England and Germany. In 1912. We also engaged in some trade with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The idea that you can't trade with someone whose interests are inimical to yours in other areas is a binary approach to foreign relations that does not match reality. Only in an actual shooting war (or as a preface to it) do you typically cease trade.

Yeah, and so the great idea would be to provoke China, which our economy deeply relies on, into a war. That's a win-win for everybody, huh?

Nope. If you are referring to "war" in the 3GW sense of a kinetic fight, please demonstrate where anyone in this thread has suggested that we should seek a shooting war with the Chinese?

You can't. Because no one is, and you are arguing against strawmen.

You have both phrased it many ways other than encircle in this thread, but really, there isn't much of a difference between encircle and invade

...Really. So you think that we basically invaded the Soviet Union during the Cold War? That we have already invaded Iran? That Mexico has invaded the southern portion of Texas, and needs to be counter-attacked?

That is.... I'll admit, my mind is blown. There isn't much of a difference between establishing a series of mutually-supporting defensive positions across the waters from the PRC in a manner that kills no one and launching an invasion of mainland China that would likely require the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions?

That is officially la-la land, dude. Now you're clinging to a failed argument from pride.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Indeed. They declared war, we didn't take them as seriously as we should have.



They do indeed hate our liberties (which they consider to be libertine); as anyone who has ever read their literature will be able to tell you (I'd recommend you start with Sayyid Qutb's "The America I Have Seen"). The Great Satan isn't simply a slogan - it's a realistic depiction of how they see America. Satan in Islam is not the neo-manichean figure with horns and hooves that features in some some of the common Christian conceptions, but a whisperer in the night, a tempter. Our liberties and freedoms and exercise of them tempt Muslims and Muslim nations into leaving Islam (as they see it), which makes us the Great Satan of the day.

Classic Neocon. We did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone in the middle east. It's because they hate our freedom!

Then you should start reading through translations of the papers presented at their defense universities and speeches made by their leadership at the same to audiences both foreign and domestic - it would do you a world of good and perhaps you might even learn a thing or two. For example, if you had done what I suggested several posts above and looked up China's intentions towards the First Island Chain, that would have demonstrated to you precisely what you are asking for here.

Wow, that's even more made-up that I thought. Instead of providing links with sources, you tell me to read all the papers from defense universities.

And do you think our defense universities aren't discussing China?

Have you really never heard of the Pivot to Asia? Of Bush's attempts to build better relations with India? Are you really unaware of the 1995 Taiwan Strait Crises? Of our treaties with Japan and the Philippines? Of our commitments to Taiwan? The policy that YOU described as psycopathic blood-thirsty warmongering is one that has been pursued now by both parties for two decades.

I'm against imperialism as a whole. Though none of this matters because we're talking about China.

Nope. If you are referring to "war" in the 3GW sense of a kinetic fight, please demonstrate where anyone in this thread has suggested that we should seek a shooting war with the Chinese?

You can't. Because no one is, and you are arguing against strawmen.

I've already done that, and I'm not doing it again. Intentionally provoking somebody into a real war is the same as starting a real war.

They still haven't done anything to illicit the kind of hostility you want.

 

[cpwill]

Classic Neocon. We did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone in the middle east. It's because they hate our freedom!

Well, no. Although it is classic isolationist to assume that it is a binary question: either they hate our freedom or they disapprove of our foreign policy. The possibility that they might do both, apparently, escapes some people who wish not to understand the world, but to either ignore the world or turn it to support domestic debates.

Wow, that's even more made-up that I thought. Instead of providing links with sources, you tell me to read all the papers from defense universities.

I provided you links to sources along with the necessary boolean logic to make a google search yourself and pull up the materials and read for yourself that I was not cherry picking above and your response was to ignore it and then accuse me of wanting to see hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent people - including my own family - wiped from the face of the Earth. You'll forgive me if my patience with going out and doing the homework for you is a bit worn.

And do you think our defense universities aren't discussing China?

Of course they are. Because everyone recognizes what you are refusing to admit in this thread - that the strategic goals of the United States and China are incompatible, making them geopolitical opponents. That doesn't mean that "discussing China" is the same thing as "describing a continuum of conflict rather than sharp definitional boundaries between politics and warfare", but I'm trying to respond to you rather than hold you to the point. If you want to understand how the Chinese view conflict, you should go read about how the Chinese view conflict. If you do not wish to devote the time, then at the very least you should not deride those of us who do read about how the Chinese view conflict when we try to explain it to you.

I'm against imperialism as a whole. Though none of this matters because we're talking about China.

Yes, and the question was, whether or not this policy enjoyed broad bi-partisan support, or whether or not this policy was the model of a small subset of neoconservatives within the Republican Party. You are against us performing such imperialistic acts as extending a security guarantee to a small democracy under daily threat of invasion by a massive democracy next door. I got it. But that position is not mainstream, and is not American foreign policy, and to pretend that it is is not historically accurate.

I've already done that, and I'm not doing it again.

No, you didn't. You quoted someone suggesting that we should continue to build our alliances in Asia, and who suggested that probably the Chinese would increase their cyber network exploitation in the future as a result of that. You appear to have confused this with "we should invade China", and argued that people in this thread were arguing in favor of a kinetic conflict with China, when no one has done so. As usual, the simplistic isolationist model is confused by complexity, and responds with ad hominem. But you are better than that, and it is unfortunate you choose to lower yourself to it.

Intentionally provoking somebody into a real war is the same as starting a real war.

Nor has anyone said we should provoke China until they start a shooting war.

They still haven't done anything to illicit the kind of hostility you want.

What kind of hostility do I want?

 

[American]

The Chinese military has nearly double the military personnel we have, and those available for conscription outnumber our entire population. They may not have the experience, or the technology. There's also no reason to believe that they haven't found ways to exploit our weaknesses.


The United States hasn't been doing the same?

Population doesn't mean **** after a certain point in today's military. BTW, you have to pay for all those people and maintain them. Good luck with that, and not spend yourself into oblivion.

 

[Surtr]

Population doesn't mean **** after a certain point in today's military. BTW, you have to pay for all those people and maintain them. Good luck with that, and not spend yourself into oblivion.

You mean the largest holder of our national debt? I'm sure they have that covered.

 

[American]

You mean the largest holder of our national debt? I'm sure they have that covered.

Their control is limited. If they could really put the squeeze on they would. I'll bet we buy more of they **** than everyone else combined. They won't touch that for nothing. They will keep hold that debt for a long time, and they'll never dump it quickly. A one billion man army is worthless unless you can afford to training, supply and mobilize it. They can't. They have mountains in the west and water in the east. They have no where to take that army that could be any threat at all. Their navy is puny, and they have a long way to go to catch up with a modern, gigantic, well trained BLUE WATER navy.

 

[Surtr]

Their control is limited. If they could really put the squeeze on they would. I'll bet we buy more of they **** than everyone else combined. They won't touch that for nothing. They will keep hold that debt for a long time, and they'll never dump it quickly.

Which makes this show of force all the more ridiculous.

A one billion man army is worthless unless you can afford to training, supply and mobilize it. They can't. They have mountains in the west and water in the east. They have no where to take that army that could be any threat at all. Their navy is puny, and they have a long way to go to catch up with a modern, gigantic, well trained BLUE WATER navy.

It's actually around 3 million men. Cost is of no concern, seeing how China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Their GDP just went up 7.5%, which for them is about 1 trillion dollars. Underestimate them all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we can't do **** to them. We're already spread out all over the world, or fighting forces aren't exactly in the best shape following two fronts of the war on terror, with more opening up, and the fact that we are **** broke as a nation. We're running on fumes, and our credit is drying up. The last thing we need is a godamned war with a superpower.

 

[jbi]

well an arm's race is a bad idea...

China launched twice as much tonnage from it's shipyards last year than the USA produced in all 5 years of WWII... arguably when US shipbuilding was at it's zenith.

Chinese industrial capacity is monstrous.

 

[Sherman123]

You mean the largest holder of our national debt? I'm sure they have that covered.

Imagine what would happen if you murdered your creditor. Chinese T-Bond purchases have helped finance the weapons that might one day be used against them.