babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Yeah, that was good. If there's a crisis, the US are the last people that should be involved given their record. They're butting in everywhere because with their military spending more than the rest of the world combined, they feel they can do as they please and who can stand in their way?
I believe the USA secretly (maybe openly?) truly and deeply wants an all-out war with China, because the US lives by the dictum that 'war is good for business' and China is the biggest opportunity ever. So they'll lose a few million in casualties - the US doesn't give a f*ck, they want to use up all those munitions they have lying around, maybe use a few A-bombs before they rust out and have to be de-commissioned and scrapped. Once the stockpile of weapons is used up, business will happilly hum along and build more.
I'm kidding! Been watching Dr. Strangelove.
It's more than just cheap porpaganda... its real.
China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988]
China's version
Vietnam's version
Well that's just it Fidel.
Eveyone here has said that the U.S. should not be interfering in the region, so my first question stands. But as I said, China isn't the only party in this dispute. The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei are all countries (in the case of Taiwan, de facto), and they are all affected by China's 80% claim, and its refusal to join in a multilateral negotiated settlement,
I'm not targetting them or afraid of them, I'm just saying they seem to be making a claim that doesn't take into account the interest of these other countries, and they are not above using presure tactics. In another article I read that China warned India to not make any agreements with Vietnam to develop oil in Vietnam's territorial waters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/16/china-vietnam-india-idUSL3E7LE...
and @ Boom Boom
Yes, good article. I presume the scare quotes are in the original. Even an international business journal speaks openly about the fact that the U.S. has an ulterior motive here.
In your world view then that incident is the same as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya and the ongoing drone strikes in at least 6 different countries.
Thx for highlighting my point that there is simply no relative comparison between the naked aggression of NATO/US and the Chinese. The Chinese are lightweight imperialists. So in 1988 there were a few casualties and you compare it to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and close to 2 million displaced refugees. Yup the Chinese are definitively not in the same league as the real imperial power.
Lets see China is to be vilified for refusing multilateral talks and at the same time we need to vilify Iran for refusing bilateral talks and insisting on multilateral ones instead. Its always the same. Any position in opposition to the NATO/US position is vilified. That is just the way our MSM works in the democratic world.
In the first place, I think your last point might be moot when it comes to what China's neighbours are facing in this dispute. Who cares how strong an opponent is relative to other bullies? The important question is how much stronger they are than you.
And secondly, you might remember that Vietnam does understand what it means to face the force of that real imperial power (and the French before them), and their relations with China are probably the most strained of any of those countries, with the exception of Taiwan.
Yup China and Vietnam have been at odds forever. You said my last point was moot. Please explain how my last point that the Chinese are light weight as imperialists compared to others is moot. Unless of course you intended the other meaning of moot and meant not that it was irrelevant and over as an issue because they are imperialists as bad as others but whether their place on a scale of murderous imperial powers is a debatable point.
Given recent events in Libya and Syria even Canada has actually killed more citizens in a foreign country lately than the Chinese. Deciding who is acting in the most murderous imperial fashion in 2012 is a debatable point. I continue to maintain that the Chinese are in the lightweight category and if Canada follows the NATO lead in Syria and Iran we will be more murderously imperialist than the Chinese. If you want to "moot" that point I am fine with a debate if you are telling me the debate is over and you win well I beg to differ.
kropotkin,
I explained why I think it is moot: It doesn't matter how strong an opponent is relative to others; it only matters how strong they are relative to you.
Similarly, it is one thing for us to compare China and the U.S. (which we all agree should not be in there) and say we aren't afraid of them. It is quite another for someone living in the shadow of a very powerful and aggressive neighbour.
So you're saying all the average Vietnamese has to do to avoid Chinese aggression is not wade out into the watery atolls and reefs situated near Spratly Islands 400 km East of Vietnam?
Vietnamese weren't able to avoid imperial aggression so easily when the doctor and the madman bombed hell out Vietnam and waged chemical warfare against women and children. Tricky Dick promised them billions in reparations, and not one thin U.S. dime so far.
*sigh*
Did I say anything like that? No.
I'm not sure, but I think you are trying to draw a weak association between China's military aggression WRT Spratly Islands a quarter century ago and that of U.S. and NATO imperialism of today.
I wish it was a case that Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Libyans, Syrians etcetera were able to avoid living under the shadow of imperial aggression by simply avoiding a few rocks emerging from the water outside a 200 mile limit. If only it was that easy, life could be a lot easier for millions living under the shadow of actually existing imperialist aggression(s) occurring as we live and breathe.
Just so long as we recognize that it is a weak and remote association between the two very different styles WRT breadth and depth of military aggression, I think we can carry on dealing in reality no harm done.
Oh for Christ sake... This is a thread about China, its neighbors and the disputed South China Sea not US world imperialism. There are plenty of other threads here that cover the topics I highlited so there's no need to rehash that here. I could sit here and rail about how Chinese fishing boats move into South Korean fishing grounds to fish illegally and flee to the safety of their navy waiting right outside the zone when the Korean Coast Guard tries to catch them. But that isn't in the South China Sea so I won't...
I have never said here China is as imperialistic as the US is, just that they are imperialistic (even if it's a little bit) and the dispute in the South China Sea, the 1988 sea battle included, is proof of it. Comparing the two nations to each other tit for tat is pretty much irrelevant to this thread.
I also contend that, in the future, as China grows stronger militarily they have the very real potential to be even more so. This is making China's neighbors nervous and this is even driving some of them like the Philippines farther into USA sphere of influence. After seeing that video, even if it was 1988, of the Chinese navy chopping down pretty much defenseless Vietnamese infantry in waste deep water (that was really fucked up) I can't wonder if that has more to do with that fear or apprehension than any USA bullshit rhetoric against China. Still: the USA shooting drones at people on the other side of the planet or whatever has nothing to do with the South China Sea. You obviously disagree with that, fine, but only the passage of time will tell who's right in this situation.
Like Filipinos have any say about U.S. military buildup in their country. Let's not pretend that Uncle Sam is there to spread democracy or contribute to resolving anything peacefully.
How can diplomacy have a chance if it's actually about threatening China militarily and ensuring that democracy does not actually take root in places like the Philippines?
Increasing U.S. Military presence on the other side of the world and political diplomacy are generally incompatible themes as usual.
Um, no I didn't. How about responding to things I actually said, instead of reacting to me daring to look at some aspect of this other than the evil Americans?
Or better still, how about doing a bit of your own reading, rather than pretending that the tension between those two countries ended with their war in 1979?
Like a $11,000 USD per person ransom for Vietnamese seized in disputed waters:
http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_china/2012-03-22/china-defends-ca...
How about I get my nose out of joint unless you agree that this international incident pales in comparison to the impending alien invasion they covered up in Roswell? Can we talk about it then? If this sort of discussion must always be framed in the context of the U.S. being the greater international threat (which I never questioned) , so be it.
I'll just draw up a boilerplate afterword to all my posts pointing out that THE AMERICANS ARE WORSE, just in case I forget to say so.
Sounds good?
So what are you saying there? The Philippines dosn't have a democraticly elected government?
LOL the Philippines have been a defacto colony of the US for over a hundred years except of course for the period that Japan claimed them. How does one get further into the US's sphere than the Philippines have historically been.
If this is not about American imperialism then what the fuck is their navy doing in the South China Sea and why are they ringing China with offensive military installations. You never did answer me as to the number of bases in other countries China maintains. Hell the US now has a major base in Australia. I guess the Aussies need the protection from the POTENTIAL threat that China posses.
Well if you believe that death squad governments are the norm, then whatever you say is fine with us. But only if you believe in the right for paranoid governments to order sweeping arrests of physicians and other health care workers accused of being communists and even terrorists. I'd be more interested to know what do you think, Bec.
From the looks of your comments in this thread I don't think I'd want to get very deep into the subject of Roswell with you, either. I'm guessing bet your commentary would read a lot like standard US Government boilerplate, or whatever this latest CIA-sponsored 'Area 51' book says about them capturing a spy plane sent by Stalin in '47. Wacky to say the least.
How can diplomacy have a chance?
This also begs the question of which parties are pushing for a multilateral diplomatic solution, and which are refusing to take part, and insisting on dealing one-on-one.
And what's with passing judgment on what the Philippines is and is not? Suppose I came on here and started questioning the sovreignty, human rights record, and generally how things are done and should be done in a foreign country - particularly a country which is vulnerable and developing.
What sort of lecture do you think I might get about keeping my nose out of it, and not imposing my western values on people who should rightly be determining their own way, regardless of whether they do things which might be seen as mistakes?
What would you or Uncle Sam have to say if the Russians or China were to proceed setting up naval and air bases in the Caribbean and ringing America with nuclear weapons? Or would escalation of hostilities and a possible WW III scenario be considered irrelevant?
Um... I'd say that would make for a pretty interesting movie starring Kevin Costner.
What are you fishing for here that I haven't addressed and re-answered numerous times?
Besides, it would hardly matter, would it, because the Americans would still be worse.
Except that some of us have family members who are American citizens and have absolutely nothing to do with the imperialism.
Let's just say that the US Military is right in the thick of it there in the South China Sea. They've been sticking their noses in Asian affairs for a lot longer than mainland China has been without an emperor or the former pro-Anglo-American thug, Chiang Kai-shek.
You're just going to go round and round aren't you? LOL
I said before China has none becouse they don't need none... for now. Of course one could argue China has bases or out posts out side it boarders on those islands out in the South China Sea... but again they are nothing compared to the USA.
Round and round we go....Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Never blink and might is right, eh, Bec?
How bout shorn from all reality?
Split hairs much, Fidel? Sounds like a good subject.... for another thread. As for this one, I think you know what I meant.
And as for reality, I think Boom Boom's quote from the international business paper struck a fairly balanced approach. At least it afforded some respect to the members of ASEAN by acknowledging they are countries with their own perspectives, which make their own policy.
The sea is also a vital shipping route, accounting for a big chunk of world trade. It is the importance of the freedom of navigation and of overflight that has given America its pretext for louder involvement. This was initially welcomed by the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations when voiced at a regional forum in Hanoi in July last year, So fiercely did China object to America's rather disingenuous offer of "mediation", however, that some countries may now be ruing it.
I agree 6079 that is a very telling quote.
As I've been saying America sticking its nose into other countries affairs has turned this dispute into a crisis. The ASEAN countries rue the day the Yanks got involved. Gun boat diplomacy is an old Yankee tactic that the Chinese are pretty familiar with and apparently they don't want to play.
Yes kropotkin, but sitting down at the table with their neighbours as a group is not the same as giving in to the Yanks. For that matter, dividing control of the sea along equitable lines isn't giving into them either. And on that point there is en existing crisis even without the Americans there.
And as a matter of fact, all parties in this dispute, including China, have used their fair share of gunboats to make their point. They don't seem reticent about using them at all. One would think a negotiated settlement - what the ASEAN nations are calling for - would be the most reasonable alternative to that.
Of course a negotiated solution is the only way to go. I have said nothing different than that. Personally I don't know enough of the intricate details of the diplomatic initiatives to be able to pontificate on any of the countries positions. My other comment has been the non Asian country is the outlier.