;;
Diplomatic resolution sought in South China Sea standoff
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:22
#1
Diplomatic resolution sought in South China Sea standoff
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:27
#2
Diplomatic Resolution Sought in South China Sea Standoff
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sough...
Philippine and Chinese officials on Wednesday called for a diplomatic solution to a naval standoff in the South China Sea, while insisting that they would defend their territorial claims in the region.
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:28
#3
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sough... link.[/url]
ETA: Whoops! Crossposted.
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:30
#4
Who was saying in another thread that they never heard the word "imperialism" except on babble?
Here it is again. U.S. imperialism. Learn that term. Better late than never. And thank babble.
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:33
#5
Boom Boom
"In an article published online this week, a Chinese Army officer accused the Philippines of trying to use American power to intimidate China. The officer, Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, warned that China might reconsider its planned $50 billion investments in the Philippines."
Wed, 2012-04-11 10:44
#6
This is all part of the US plan to hem China in
The Philippines, an ally of the United States, has become a particular target of China’s anger in the South China Sea disputes. Some analysts speculate that Beijing’s harsher tone could be a tit-for-tat after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stood on the deck of an American warship last November in Manila Bay and reaffirmed the military alliance between the Philippines and the United States.Mrs. Clinton referred to an area of the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea — a name used by the Philippines but not other nations — a point that irritated the Chinese.
In a demonstration of how exploration of oil and gas is a crucial aspect of the South China Sea territorial disputes, American and Philippine naval exercises this month will include one that involves retaking a hijacked oil rig, according to the Philippine military. The current naval standoff began Sunday when Philippine surveillance aircraft spotted eight Chinese fishing boats near Scarborough Shoal, an outcropping of rocks 124 nautical miles east of Luzon Island in the Philippines. The shoal, which is called Panatag in the Philippines and Huangyan in China, is claimed by both countries.
Wed, 2012-04-11 11:20
#7
I don't get it. China holds most of the USA's debt. If they have a war does that nullify the trade debt or something?
Thu, 2012-04-12 08:03
#8
High-stakes brinkmanship on South China Sea
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/high-stakes-brinkmanship-on-so...
Thu, 2012-04-12 14:48
#9
Bec.De.Corbin
I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer. China is doing the same crap with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and several other nations. The more they build up their navy the more they that start pushing on neighboring nations territories. But then the Philippines are a US ally so they have to be evil and up to no good and must be opposed at any cost.
Right guys?
Thu, 2012-04-12 14:55
#10
I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer.
I don't know why they don't just name you as arbitrator. With logic like yours, peaceful solutions based on geographic proximity would be so simple, compared to messy issues of law.
PS: Could you send me a copy of your decision awarding the Malvinas to Argentina - or are you still measuring the distance to Buckingham Palace?
Thu, 2012-04-12 17:09
#11
Bec.De.Corbin
Thanks, unfortunately it's not always that simple. The Malvinas belong to Argentina, Britain took them by force.
So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?
Thu, 2012-04-12 17:59
#12
So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?
Absolutely not. I have no idea of the history or the legalities. You, on the contrary, seem to draw conclusions about who owns what from distances on maps.
What I know for sure is that U.S. imperialism should get out or be physically thrown out of that region, and everywhere else for that matter. Do you get the distinction, or would you like some more explanation with more examples, etc.?
Thu, 2012-04-12 18:27
#13
Scarborough Shoal Again in the News
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/national/1304-scarborough-shoal-...
"..When Antonio Trilleres became senator, he authored the first bill defining the country's baselines, which was needed for our submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. In his version, Scarborough Shoal was included in the baselines primarily because he said, 'the distance from Luzon is less than the 125 nm limit.' With this our country stands to gain approximately 14,500 sq nm of EEZ and Continental Shelf,' he added.
The Arroyo government version, was what became law, designated Scarborough as 'a regime of islands.' As regime of islands, it is still part of Philipines territory, but as Trilleres pointed out, Scarborough Shoal is basically a rock, and according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the regime of islands has an exception and that is Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf..."
Scarborough Tension Eased
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/national/1306-scarborough-tensio...
"Philipine Coast Guard ship relieves 'Del Pilar'; standoff now a civilian issue.."
Thu, 2012-04-12 18:35
#14
Clinton Embraces the Navy
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/12/clinton_embraces_the_na...
"...As part of the 'pivot to Asia' the Obama administration has adopted the Navy's vision of the centrality of seapower to grand strategy, and appreciates the multifaceted role that the Navy will play in shaping East Asia politics. It seem unlikely though, that the Chinese will be too excited about seeing more American warships in their backyard. Clinton acknowledged this obliquely, saying,
'I am well aware that some in Asia fear that a robust American presence, and our talk of architecture, institutions and norms is really code for protecting Western perogatives and denying rising powers their fair share of influence. The argument goes that we're trying to draw them into a rigged system that favours us.'
Well, yes."
Fri, 2012-04-13 08:29
#15
Bec.De.Corbin
So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?
Absolutely not. I have no idea of the history or the legalities. You, on the contrary, seem to draw conclusions about who owns what from distances on maps.
What I know for sure is that U.S. imperialism should get out or be physically thrown out of that region, and everywhere else for that matter. Do you get the distinction, or would you like some more explanation with more examples, etc.?
I'm not drawing anything here. I just showed a map, that I didn't draw by the way, and said it would seem China's claim seems to ignore other nations in the area that are obviously closer to that area. I also said that in allot of these territorial disputes China is turning out to be quit the imperialist force its self... something many here seem to ignore or don't know about. Every indication is it's only going to get worse as China builds up its navy. If you want to dispute that go for it.
I already know your AI stance, nothing new there.
Fri, 2012-04-13 09:32
#16
Apparently, everyone's oil and gas deposits everywhere are a strategic resource for the USSA, hence it's always seen as a pressing national security concern of theirs when other nations start getting all uppity about who owns what. That's why the US State Department and their loyal national information bureaus, the media in other words, get all bent out of shape when folks like the Russians or the Venezuelans for instance elect the wrong candidates. Hell, for that matter, someone holding up a poster on Pennsylvania Avenue that says 'down with the imperialists' constitutes a potential national security threat. It really doesn't take a whole lot these days. It might be worthwhile to research the history of negotiations, if any exist, between the successions of US backed puppet rulers in the Philippines and the PRC over the disputed areas. We might also surmise that the performance bonus envelopes of the oil and gas industry executives on Capitol Hill, aka the lackey representatives in Congress, might be a little lighter than usual if they're not kicking up a stink whenever their bosses interests are not being advanced in the halls of influence.
Fri, 2012-04-13 10:39
#17
The tail end of that NYT article mentions China's disagreement with Vietnam and the Philippines over a multilateral approach:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/south_east_asia/AJ201204040082
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/31925/china-urges-direct-talks-on-marit...
Fri, 2012-04-13 11:30
#18
Bec.De.Corbin
Yeah but it isn't just China vs Philippines in this dispute. Vietnam, Malaysia and several other counties have claims in the area as well. Does that make them all USA patsies?
Fri, 2012-04-13 11:46
#19
Vietnam, Malaysia and several other counties have claims in the area as well.
They're not counties yet. They're still independent.
Does that make them all USA patsies?
You don't get it, do you? That's a rhetorical question. There's only one problem here. Let me spell it out for you:
U-S I-M-P-E-R-I-A-L-I-S-M
Ok, now back to the New York Times story:
Some analysts speculate that Beijing’s harsher tone could be a tit-for-tat after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stood on the deck of an American warship last November in Manila Bay and reaffirmed the military alliance between the Philippines and the United States.Mrs. Clinton referred to an area of the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea — a name used by the Philippines but not other nations — a point that irritated the Chinese.
You see, "Mrs." Clinton's buttocks should, and one day soon will, be very rudely kicked out of that region, where she sells arms for profit, provokes disputes between countries that have never been at war, and deliberately incites conflicts by inventing a name ("West Philippine Sea") which has no international recognition.
I would invite you to imagine the following scenario where China signs a military treaty with France, and the Chinese foreign minister, from the deck of a Chinese warship lurking off the coast of Newfoundland smirks and scowls, reaffirms China's "sacred determination" to protect St-Pierre and Miquelon against "any and all aggressors", and makes passing reference to Newfoundland as "the 21st arrondissement of Paris".
No, these countries are not "patsies" of the U.S. The U.S. has all the patsies it needs, right here in Canada.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:04
#20
Gee I think Canada shoud withdraw some of its claims in the north since Russia and Norway and the US all have competing claims. Damn if we only had the largest military on the planet we could just sail in and intimidate countries and sabre rattle till we get our own way.
I hope the Russians and US don't decide to make the North a crisis area by sending in massive navel fleets to determine their "might" to the oil.
Bec your portrayal of China as an imperialist country is interesting. You have a lot of military knowledge so maybe you can tell me how many countries they have military bases in? I know the US spends about 12 times the amount on weapons compared to China. And can you point me to the stated imperial design that the Chinese are following. The US of course for nearly 200 years has had its Munroe Doctrine. It states that in areas that are contingent to it like the Philippines are to China, "we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."
Seems to me the US is adopting an unfriendly disposition towards China in inserting its military into a region of the world that they have no right or reason to think they should control. Except of course for the fact of American "exceptionalism." Ask most Americans they will tell you the US is the guiding light and should direct the "free world" in all its activities because God made their constitution in His image.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:06
#21
All the same, it might be kinda nice to use 'patsies' as our very own Canadianized description, like humor vs. humour. I think the US has had a lock on the words stooge and lackey for some time.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:09
#22
Seems to me that patsies in foreign governments provide the pasties for naked agression by US/NATO imperialists.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:11
#23
No. There are at least two stories here.
There is the U.S. wrongly getting involved in this dispute for its own gain and power, and there is also the dispute between China and the other countries in the region (not all of which are puppets of the United States), who seem to want to avoid divide and conquer tactics.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:20
#24
A regional discussion limited to interested nations who are actually located in the region can't be of interest to anyone on Wall Street.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:22
#25
I'm waiting for China's navy armed with nukes to sail into the Arctic and claim that it supporting Norway's bid. Would anybody find that scenario acceptable?
6079, it seems to me that the only outlier in the South China Sea dispute is the USA. Like our Arctic I think that diplomacy between the countries involved is what is required. There is no place for the US in this dispute.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:32
#26
@ kropotkin1951
I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute.
But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).
Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:32
#27
Ugly Amerikkaner diplomacy has no place anywhere. It's practitioners should all be taken out for a dunk in the latest Gulf of Mexico oil sheen.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:43
#28
@ kropotkin1951
I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute.
But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).
Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.
Hey Smith. This is none of the U.S.'s business. It is none of our business as Canadians. What you're proposing is very similar to how the U.S. is trying to insert itself in the dispute - "Mrs." Clinton warning unnamed countries not to intimidate anyone. If China wants to negotiate one on one, that's China's business and whoever agrees to negotiate that way.
Colonial thinking runs deep. Let's just pretend that the people of those countries are almost as smart as we and "Mrs." Clinton are when it comes to handling their own sovereign affairs. I know it's a stretch, but let's try anyway.
Fri, 2012-04-13 12:51
#29
If China was not "offside" with the other countries there wouldn't be a dispute.
If the US navy was not being sent to the region at the same time as Clinton's sabre rattling it would not be an international crisis.
Fri, 2012-04-13 13:57
#30
@ kropotkin1951
I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute.
But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).
Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.
Hey Smith. This is none of the U.S.'s business. It is none of our business as Canadians. What you're proposing is very similar to how the U.S. is trying to insert itself in the dispute - "Mrs." Clinton warning unnamed countries not to intimidate anyone. If China wants to negotiate one on one, that's China's business and whoever agrees to negotiate that way.
Colonial thinking runs deep. Let's just pretend that the people of those countries are almost as smart as we and "Mrs." Clinton are when it comes to handling their own sovereign affairs. I know it's a stretch, but let's try anyway.
Sorry Unionist, but WTF are you talking about? Did I say that I think Canada or any other outside country should interfere in this situation? Did I say anything to imply that anyone over there is not smart enough to handle diplomatic affairs? I happen to think the Chinese tactic in this is very smart - a very smart series of attempts to pressure and divide its neighbours, and interfere with THEIR desire for a multilateral negotiated solution.
And did I propose anything at all (other than saying that the U.S. should not be there, that is)? I don't think so, so I am not sure what you are on about with comparisons between my ideas and those of the U.S. Imperialists.
...or you accusing me of thinking that other people aren't intelligent.
and @ kropotkin
Actually it would be an international crisis whether the U.S. was there or not. It just wouldn't be one which would draw our attention.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:07
#31
I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer.
Come on, Bec. Uncle Sam and his oil companies had their kick at the can in South East Asia with Vietnam. It's time to let go.
China's Discovery Boom: Large Oil and Gas Fields Detected Offshore
South China Sea is another potentially large oil and gas basin.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:19
#32
Did they find huge reserves of straw there too?
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:30
#33
Bec.De.Corbin
Bec your portrayal of China as an imperialist country is interesting. so maybe you can tell me how many countries they have military bases in? .
They don't need bases in other countries when they are dealing with their neighbors. Their own bases serve them just fine for what they are doing right now.
Also your wrong if you think China won't be pushing its interests on it neighbors if the USA wasn't around. The dreaded USA is not the only reason China is building up its navy. But don't let me stop you from thinking that. Blame the USA for this if it makes you feel better; it changes nothing. China is an up and coming world power; they will have their own style of imperialism, only time will tell how bad it will be. Depending on how old we all are here we may or may not live to see that day. They need fuel for their economic fire and while China may not dominate the entire planet like some have they damn sure will dominate their region.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:31
#34
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.
You're kidding, right?
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:33
#35
Bec.De.Corbin
Did they find huge reserves of straw there too?
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.
Well acording to Unionist Vietnam is not even a country... or something like that. (I have no idea where he was going with that.)
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:44
#36
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.You're kidding, right?
For some strange reason I thought that link might take me to some evidence that the U.S. was setting up a military base in Vietnam.
But it doesn't, and no, I'm not kidding.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:45
#37
Also your wrong if you think [China or Russia or the UK or Germany or India etc] won't be pushing its interests on it neighbors if the USA wasn't around.
Sorry that stupid box you are trying to put me in has no basis in my personal views. Try talking about the subject matter instead of making up stupid straw man arguments based on NOTHING I posted.
Fri, 2012-04-13 14:56
#38
Bec.De.Corbin
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.You're kidding, right?
No, you've got to be kidding with that post... that link shows NOTHING about Vietnam besides it being on the map.
Here let me help you out...
Vietnam Says Cnooc's South China Sea Bids Violate Territory
Vietnam, China tension escalates
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:00
#39
and @ kropotkin
Actually it would be an international crisis whether the U.S. was there or not. It just wouldn't be one which would draw our attention.
It is apparent we don't share the same definition of international crisis. When NATO or the US sends its nuclear armadas into a region it raises a normal international dispute over trade into a high stakes game involving the whole planet and that is a crisis. You may be right that if the US wasn't sabre rattling that we would not hear about this because the parties involved would eventually reach an agreement without threatening to plunge the planet into a nuclear winter.
I presume both you and Bec understand that the only military threat to the Chinese homeland is nuclear. In any conventional war they are more than capable of defending themselves. Given they are one of the charter members of MAD we know they are prepared to strike back. I am seriously cynical and actually believe that if China did not have nukes and the capability of delivering them that Hillary would be talking about tactical nuclear strikes like in the dispute with Iran.
I also think that this is not really about countries but rather about petroleum companies. The Chinese want access to the oil every where on the planet. They are willing to pony up the cash to develop any oil fields and I think that left alone the dispute will be resolved by various face saving gestures on the "sovereignty" issues as long as the Chines oil companies get to do the developing. That will cut out the American and UK oil companies, ergo the sabre rattling about the rights of nations. The really bad thing from a western perspective is that there aren't some people on the deserted Philippine rock so that they could invoke the Duty to Protect doctrine.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:10
#40
Bec.De.Corbin
Also your wrong if you think [China or Russia or the UK or Germany or India etc] won't be pushing its interests on it neighbors if the USA wasn't around.
Sorry that stupid box you are trying to put me in has no basis in my personal views. Try talking about the subject matter instead of making up stupid straw man arguments based on NOTHING I posted.
Chinese aggression towards its neighbors is hardly a straw man argument and I'm not trying to put you in anything... Your views are your views, I respect that. I'm just giving you my answer and honest opinion to your question, you know, the one YOU asked me. I'm sorry if you didn't like it but it's not like anybody is going to change anybody's mind around here.
Oh and why are you editing my comments and adding stuff I didn't write? That's just wrong dude... the subject matter of your question to me was China, I'm not talking about the entire planet here.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:10
#41
I wonder though as my species rushes to unearth every last drop of carbon based oil and gas and burn it as quick as possible.
A pox on all the oil companies. No matter whether is Vietnam's or China's state owned petrol company that develops it makes it any more saner. My guess is that much of the carbon will get burned in China even if Vietnam develops the field. Now if the Philippines are the "rightful" owners then of course the fields will be developed by the US and UK oil companies and the bulk of the carbon will be shipped to America and Europe.
I don't support any of it I just think it is ludicrous to compare the US and China. Its like comparing the Hells Angels to an eighth grade bully. I also don't like either of those.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:15
#42
@ kropotkin1951 #38
matters between sovreign nations = international affairs.
Sorry, but China is not the only interested party, nor the only party in the region that is a sovereign nation, and in terms of local politics this is not all about them.
China wants to have its own companies do the developing? Well I'd like to have a coffee tree in my back yard, but I don't. And in terms of their situation, I think they might do better by actually negotiating with their neighbouring sovereign nations rather than threatening them.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:18
#43
Chinese aggression towards its neighbors is hardly a straw man argument and I'm not trying to put you in anything... Your views are your views, I respect that.
Any sentence that starts with, "Also your wrong if you THINK" is not being respectful of my views. I am not as naive as your stupid comment that I think that China would not be pushing its interest. Point to any of my posts where I have said that China does not push its interests. That is a the basis of my claim you are using a straw man argument the straw man is your saying I THINK ridiculous and naive ideas and then going on to crush my idiocy.
I personally don't find that respectful in the least.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:18
#44
I don't support any of it I just think it is ludicrous to compare the US and China. Its like comparing the Hells Angels to an eighth grade bully.
I can agree with that in part (though I think you seriously underestimate China's power). So why are you rationalizing China's strongarming its neighbours with arguments that they just want a piece of the pie?
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:26
#45
I stand corrected. That looks like the whole pie.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:28
#46
I don't support any of it I just think it is ludicrous to compare the US and China. Its like comparing the Hells Angels to an eighth grade bully.
I can agree with that in part (though I think you seriously underestimate China's power). So why are you rationalizing China's strong arming its neighbours with arguments that they just want a piece of the pie?
I think China is a dominant power in its region and has the muscle to push around its neighbours. I also think that they want access to resources to drive their economy and appear in Canada and Libya and other parts of the world to be quite happy with having the controlling interest.
In negotiations one always wants to go in with a strong hand. The Chinese have the muscle but I am not an international lawyer so I have no idea which country has the merits. It seems much like the Arctic in that the claims are overlapping. What would the US say if the Norwegians or Russians started drilling in waters subject to disputed claims? How helpful would it for the Chinese to send in its navy to stop the US from preventing the Norwegians from drilling before an international agreement had been concluded.
China can also claim that like the South China Sea the Arctic is international waters and therefore they have a rightful interest in marine traffic safety and security just as much as the Americans have an interest in marine traffic through the South China Sea.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:36
#47
Bec.De.Corbin
Maybe this will help, maybe it woun't.
@1951: and I'm sure the USA is safe from Chinese attack. I really doubt anybody is going to war over this. But it does show how China is starting to get assertive with its neighbors as its military might grows (and that's all I'm really trying to say in this thread). Do you disagree with that?
(good point about the oil companies by the way)
[edit] Having read you post above I'm sorry you're taking this all too personnel. Have a nice day.
Fri, 2012-04-13 15:40
#48
@ kropotkin1951
A strong hand? Well they certainly showed that in their resolution regarding Taiwanese sovreignty.
I could make the very same argument to justify the American gunboat approach, and you say yourself that you dislike that tactic in principle, regardless of the scale. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for the other.
So sorry, I can see why China's variousneighbours on all sides might feel threatened, and I think their tactics of turning down multinational talks and threatening withdrawl of investment is a bad one.
And running your boats through a piece of water is a matter of common security and interest. Resource revenues are another matter entirely.
Fri, 2012-04-13 16:07
#49
Well acording to Unionist Vietnam is not even a country... or something like that. (I have no idea where he was going with that.)
Where I was going? LOL! You inadvertently spelled the word [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/diplomatic-resol..."C-O-U-N-T-I-E-S"[/url], thus prematurely and perhaps subconsciously annexing them into subdivisions of some U.S. states. So where I was going with that was to a dictionary. And to the history section of the library (you know - the textbooks on I-M-P-E-R-I-A-L-I-S-M). Why - where were [i]you[/i] going with that?
Fri, 2012-04-13 16:17
#50
The difference is that China is dealing with its neighbours. The US is not a regional country and they are the ones ramping up the rhetoric.
I agree with Unionist that this is essentially none of our business and the actual sovereign nations should be left alone to work it out. The outlier nation in this whole crisis is the one that is not ASIAN.
I posted mostly because I find the comparison of imperial China to the US so ludicrous that it reads like cheap propaganda. I missed the news of the countries that China is currently bombing with drones. I also missed the reports of the drone assassination strikes on the Tibetan "terrorists" hiding in Nepal and India. That is why I asked Bec how many countries the Chinese have military bases in. His only response was they are stronger than their neighbours. Vilifying any country that does not toe the Washington line is propaganda 101. The MSM is currently vilifying China.
Countries it seems to me are somewhat like people. None of us are without faults but I don't compare the Hell's Angels to the eighth grade bully and that is how I see comparisons of China to the US as imperial nations. One has a history of inflicting devastating damage up to and including murder and the other is trying to strong arm you for your lunch money. I don't want to deal with either but if you gave me my choice I think I'd take the lunch money heist over the kind of murderous extortion an organization like the Angels can bring to bear.
Fri, 2012-04-13 16:23
#51
+1