Chinese maritime aggression. Other East Asian nations now remember why they like America

[s.rwitt]

Anyway, what does the USA have to do with East Asia? Why is it allowed to police those areas? And @lol@ at people taking this propaganda-source seriously.

It's "allowed" to police those areas because most of the countries in the area have asked it to. That was an exceptionally stupid question.

[Petrucci]

Read next paragraph very carefully ,because I'm becoming bored of repeating same thing googleplex time:
USA are the greatest power ever existed in history of man kind. And they are acting according to their interest, which is natural and don't differ of any other great power in last 5000 years.
But don't sell me crap, or even worse hide behind human rights, international law* or accuse other states for their violence when neither you abide that rules.

*which are generally good

[Adar]

Lemondude, I agree with the logic inside your framework of belief.

I do however think that your framework is far too centered on power and conflict. According to your point of view it would be more beneficial for the West to enforce a trade embargo against China and watch you all die than to trade with China.

There are essentially two reasons for why we doesn't do that:

1) We are getting soft.

2) Economical success is not a zero sum game. The amount of resources on earth are limited but with continued innovation we are able to utilize them more efficiently. Therefore the growth of China isn't considered a threat unless China decides to turn global politics into a game of relative power and military.

This is why Germany currently is dominating Europe without any significant opposition. Their army is fat and useless but their economic strength mean that they are able to get both Britain and France to compromise. They are powerful but appreciated because there is a balance between their demands and contribution.

Thinking such a thing will happen in the Baltic is not a question of pessimism, but simply the ability to reason logically (which you apparently lack - why would Russia want worthless Swedish waters?).

Anyway, what does the USA have to do with East Asia? Why is it allowed to police those areas? And @lol@ at people taking this propaganda-source seriously.

A) You have to ask the Russians about that because they are the ones who are currently increasing their army and got a history of invading the Baltic nations.

B) The button with a triangle facing to the right at the bottom of the image in the first post means "play". Click that and you will see a video that answers your question about US involvement in South East Asia.

[lemondude]

Lemondude, I agree with the login inside your framework of belief.

I do however think that your framework is to centered on power and conflict. According to your point of view it would be far more beneficial for the West to enforce a trade embargo against China and watch you all die.

There are essentially two reasons for why we doesn't do that:

1) We are getting soft.

2) Economical success is not a zero sum game. The amount of resources on earth are limited but with continued innovation we are able to utilize them more efficiently. Therefore the growth of China isn't considered a threat unless China decides to turn global politics into a game of relative power and military.

This is why Germany currently is dominating Europe without any significant opposition. Their army is fat and useless but their economic strength mean that they are able to get both Britain and France to compromise as long as Germany care about their joint success.

To suggest that the West could simply embargo China is crazy. If you can't embargo an Arab nation you are not going to be able to do it in China. Can you suggest a way the West won't die when the world's second biggest economy disappears? You know how much investment of the west is in China? And vice versa?

This is like suggesting to cut out the heart to save a finger.

Germany is not a good example, because Germany is not the Super power, at most it's a great power under the influence of America.

China is trying to take America head on.

The Chinese threat is just the most recent imaginary enemy for the US because of our differences and misunderstandings. We don't really understand each other. For every "human right abuse" of China aired in America, China has matched with an abuse by the US on their networks.

Interesting fact, while America broadcasting it's "defense" of Taiwan, China was saying how it was criminally "provoked" by the Americans. Same issue, two different sides. Nobody is wrong, but depends on who you want to side with.

Until the time when a third maybe alien force appears, earth will never lack conflict. two person one apple will always happen, it's just the people will always change in the scenario.


Lastly, on an English board, it would be really weird if everyone supported China because if that were the case, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion..

[Nikitn]

It's "allowed" to police those areas because most of the countries in the area have asked it to. That was an exceptionally stupid question.

Just like when the US was "allowed" by the dominant mafia-group in Kosovo to be its "protector" and carpet-bomb Serbia? Or when the US was "allowed" by the oppressive criminal regime of South Vietnam to "protect" it against its own people (FNL)? Please don't pretend like the US is going into East-Asia to protect clean and democratic regimes like those in Vietnam or the Philippines. In reality, the US is muscling in and looking for pretexts to take sides so it can increase its influence in South-East Asia before China does. Propaganda-videos like the one posted by the OP changes none of this.

[s.rwitt]

Just like the US was "allowed" by the dominant mafia-group in Kosovo to carpet-bomb Serbia? Please don't pretend like the US is going into East-Asia to protect clean and democratic regimes like those in Vietnam or the Philippines. In reality, the US is muscling in and looking for pretexts to take sides so it can increase its influence in South-East Asia before China does. Propaganda-videos like the one posted by the OP changes none of this.

Are you arguing that the US's allies, along with most countries in the region, are not in favor of the US's presence there? Or are you just rambling on against things no one is arguing?

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

Read next paragraph very carefully ,because I'm becoming bored of repeating same thing googleplex time:
USA are the greatest power ever existed in history of man kind. And they are acting according to their interest, which is natural and don't differ of any other great power in last 5000 years.
But don't sell me crap, or even worse hide behind human rights, international law* or accuse other states for their violence when neither you abide that rules.

*which are generally good

What could you possibly think you're debating?

[Nikitn]

Are you arguing that the US's allies, along with most countries in the region, are not in favor of the US's presence there? Or are you just rambling on against things no one is arguing?

I will explain my point simply just for you:

I was saying the US had no business taking sides in political-disputes happening on the other side of the world.

[Mangalore]

Are you arguing that the US's allies, along with most countries in the region, are not in favor of the US's presence there? Or are you just rambling on against things no one is arguing?
...

He was arguing that you will always find some interest group that you can back to justify whatever you want to do which isn't precisely wrong and that none is wasting a lot of resources and money just because someone asked him. Personally I do consider it acceptable if said interest group represent a sufficient faction of the population it claims to represent so it is not applicable in Asia. The US has interests there, a lot of countries are caught in the rise of China and seek a counter balance which post ww2 was the US anyway. In reverse it is however also quite natural that China doesn't gives a hoot about the established post ww2 order because their national pride associates their rise with changing the post ww2 order which was the last epitaph of China taking it up the ass for 100 years so they are not seeing that as particularly acceptable situation where they had much to say about how it was created.

[s.rwitt]

I will explain my point simply just for you:

I was saying the US had no business taking sides in political-disputes happening on the other side of the world.

Of course it has business taking sides there. East Asia is one of the most important regions in the world to the global economy and the US is the world's only superpower. It is within the interests of everyone, including the US, for it to remain stable. Mere geography is irrelevant. If this is your standard, I'd expect you to absolutely hate Russia's involvement in Syria considering the fact that Russia isn't located in the Middle East. But that would require consistency.

Anyhow, asking who "allows" the US to be there is an interesting way of arguing something completely different than the point you're now claiming to be making.
---------------------

He was arguing that you will always find some interest group that you can back to justify whatever you want to do which isn't precisely wrong and that none is wasting a lot of resources and money just because someone asked him. Personally I do consider it acceptable if said interest group represent a sufficient faction of the population it claims to represent so it is not applicable in Asia. The US has interests there, a lot of countries are caught in the rise of China and seek a counter balance which post ww2 was the US anyway. In reverse it is however also quite natural that China doesn't gives a hoot about the established post ww2 order because their national pride associates their rise with changing the post ww2 order which was the last epitaph of China taking it up the ass for 100 years so they are not seeing that as particularly acceptable situation where they had much to say about how it was created.

I don't disagree with that, the issue I have with Nikitin's argument (at least the initial one as he seems to be changing it now) is that he doesn't seem to understand the majority of nations involved in the dispute want the US there. This isn't the US strong-arming anyone or butting into something that doesn't concern it.

[Admiral Piett]

To suggest that the West could simply embargo China is crazy. If you can't embargo an Arab nation you are not going to be able to do it in China. Can you suggest a way the West won't die when the world's second biggest economy disappears? You know how much investment of the west is in China? And vice versa?

This is like suggesting to cut out the heart to save a finger.

Germany is not a good example, because Germany is not the Super power, at most it's a great power under the influence of America.

China is trying to take America head on.

The Chinese threat is just the most recent imaginary enemy for the US because of our differences and misunderstandings. We don't really understand each other. For every "human right abuse" of China aired in America, China has matched with an abuse by the US on their networks.

Interesting fact, while America broadcasting it's "defense" of Taiwan, China was saying how it was criminally "provoked" by the Americans. Same issue, two different sides. Nobody is wrong, but depends on who you want to side with.

Until the time when a third maybe alien force appears, earth will never lack conflict. two person one apple will always happen, it's just the people will always change in the scenario.


Lastly, on an English board, it would be really weird if everyone supported China because if that were the case, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion..

I think you might be misconstruing some of our points of view. My position and my sources, which shed light on the inner turmoil of the country in light of the new leadership, doesn't mean that we Americans should view China as a threat to us. China is not a threat to us. It is a threat to its eastern and southern neighbors however. The blatant efforts to acquire islands which are already de facto property of other nations is a very poor way to pursue its interests. There's no good reason for the Chinese state to do it apart from the new leaders trying to assert their unique positions. Just the same as the so-called reforms and firing of provincial leaders for the guise of combating corruption. The new leaders are putting as much pressure outward as they can to see what they can realistically get away with. It's stupid really, that's a good way to catch the attention of the US and make unnecessary confrontation.

[Nikitn]

Of course it has business taking sides there. East Asia is one of the most important regions in the world to the global economy and the US is the world's only superpower.

Okay. Where is the connection between "superpower" and "should be allowed to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants" without any criticism?

If this is your standard, I'd expect you to absolutely hate Russia's involvement in Syria considering the fact that Russia isn't located in the Middle East. But that would require consistency.

Russia is not taking any sides in Syria - it is just fulfilling its previous business-obligations and calling for a cease-fire. I think you're merely confusing the extremely pro-rebel (who, btw, are largely wahhabists) standpoint of the West as the neutral one. However, if, hypothetically, RF was an ally of Syria, it would still be a far cry from the US suddenly muscling its way into disputes between countries which have nothing to do with it.



As for your rant about "allowed": I was speaking from an ethical standpoint - can you stop crying about this now?

[s.rwitt]

Okay. Where is the connection between "superpower" and "should be allowed to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants" without any criticism?

That's a funny question to ask considering no one suggested such a connection.

Russia is not taking any sides in Syria - it is just fulfilling its previous business-obligations and calling for a cease-fire. I think you're merely confusing the extremely pro-rebel (who, btw, are largely wahhabists) standpoint of the West as the neutral one. However, if, hypothetically, RF was an ally of Syria, it would still be a far cry from the US suddenly muscling its way into disputes between countries which have nothing to do with it.

Russia...is not taking sides...in Syria. Sometimes its like you actually believe this crap.

Funny that the US working with allies in the region, at their request, to stop Chinese coercion is "muscling its way into disputes that have nothing to do with it" to you. Tell me, Nikitn, just how did those dirty American imperialists force China's neighbors to ask them for help when China started claiming their territory?

As for your rant about "allowed": I was speaking from an ethical standpoint - can you stop crying about this now?

Because it is unethical for the US to help its allies resist living under Chinese expansionism in order to keep the region stable for the benefit of pretty much the entire world, including the US. Those bastards.

You're framing China's neighbors resisting China stealing from them as an immoral US action. See what kind of stupidity an agenda can cause you to post?

[Petrucci]

That's a funny question to ask considering no one suggested such a connection.

I did.
Stop pretending USA is doing something because they want to help world , they do it because they have interests . Sometimes those two overlap.

[s.rwitt]

Christ, petrucci, you're even screwing up your own arguments now. You did not, in fact, suggest a connection between the US being a superpower and the US being able to do "whatever it wants wherever it wants".

Now, pay attention before I make this even more embarrassing for you. I've said, twice on this page alone, that the US is there because a stable East Asia is within its interests, as well as those of the global economy in general:

Because it is unethical for the US to help its allies resist living under Chinese expansionism in order to keep the region stable for the benefit of pretty much the entire world, including the US. Those bastards.

It is within the interests of everyone, including the US, for it to remain stable.

Can you quote me attributing the US's involvement to some sort of selfless humanitarian motive? No, of course you can't. Because you're not even reading what you're responding to.

[Adar]

To suggest that the West could simply embargo China is crazy. If you can't embargo an Arab nation you are not going to be able to do it in China. Can you suggest a way the West won't die when the world's second biggest economy disappears? You know how much investment of the west is in China? And vice versa?

This is like suggesting to cut out the heart to save a finger.

China isn't actually that important to Europe. The major issue is the rare earth metals that China have almost monopolized. The rest is essentially cheap luxury goods exported to keep poor people happy.

And an embargo is only an overreaction as long as China act in accordance with international law. If China was to gain such a position that they could force Korea, Japan and Vietnam to not compete less effectively, then cutting out China would be like cutting out a cancer regardless of where you got it.

My example with Germany is actually exactly what I am trying to talk about. Namely the ability to get enough power to secure good living conditions for your population. For example I am Swedish which mean that I live in a nation with very limited power in the world. I do however enjoy one of the highest living standards in the world and that is far more important than the ability to harass Norwegian fishermen on the North Sea.

I did.
Stop pretending USA is doing something because they want to help world , they do it because they have interests . Sometimes those two overlap.

Actually, USA is doing a lot to help the world. It is generally schocking for a young adult to realize that people aren't following some kind of code of absolute morality. But in general it is impossible for a government to manage a western nation without trying to maintain a balance between cynical interests and aid.

This is especially true in a globalized market economy as a non-benevolent superpower would be unable to maintain a reasonable trade balance.

[Petrucci]

I don't want to quote myself but I mentioned in at least 2 time. That mean you don't read my post carefully.

Now, pay attention before I make this even more embarrassing for you. I've said, twice on this page alone, that the US is there because a stable East Asia is within its interests, as well as those of the global economy in general

Plz tell me how this and #293 aren't the same
Also , I didn't come here to embarrass somebody or to be embarrassed,but to discus. If you want to embarrass somebody , I suggest you to quit this forum. Therefore I ask you for more polite behavior. Moderator has given us a warning.

Actually, USA is doing a lot to help the world. It is generally schocking for a young adult to realize that people aren't following some kind of code of absolute morality. But in general it is impossible for a government to manage a western nation without trying to maintain a balance between cynical interests and aid.

This is especially true in a globalized market economy as a non-benevolent superpower would be unable to maintain a reasonable trade balance.

I agree there are certain amount of people in USA who are unselfishly helping various people in the world and . I also agree with moment you become aware there aren't any code of absolute morality.But when we come to governments they almost never do anything if they can't see benefit from it.

[s.rwitt]

I don't want to quote myself but I mentioned in at least 2 time. That mean you don't read my post carefully.

Really? You said, at least twice, that because the US is a superpower it can do whatever it wants wherever it wants without criticism? Well that was a very dumb thing to say. Or at least it would have been, if you had said it. Which you didn't.

Plz tell me how this and #293 aren't the same

You have to be trolling me right now...

They ARE the same...that's why it was ridiculous when you accused me of arguing something I wasn't. I literally cannot make this anymore simple for you, but I'll try:

-I said the US is involved in this to protect the interests of itself, the global economy in general, and its allies in the region
-You (bizarrely) respond by telling me to stop pretending the US is not pursuing its own interests
-I show you two instances of me arguing that it is, in fact, pursuing its interests along with others
-You (bizarrely) ask me how what I was arguing all along doesn't coincide with what you thought I should be arguing

I don't know what to do if this doesn't work. A diagram of some sort?

Also , I didn't come here to embarrass somebody or to be embarrassed,but to discus. If you want to embarrass somebody , I suggest you to quit this forum. Therefore I ask you for more polite behavior. Moderator has given as a warning.

No.

[Adar]

I agree there are certain amount of people in USA who are unselfishly helping various people in the world and . I also agree with moment you become aware there aren't any code of absolute morality.But when we come to governments they almost never do anything if they can't see benefit from it.

I have met enough people in my days to conclude that even people with power tend to be people.

A good example is Iraq, for any cynical agenda it would probably have made more sense to just bribe Saddam. But instead they tried to create a new American century by removing him...

[Kanaric]

I will explain my point simply just for you:

I was saying the US had no business taking sides in political-disputes happening on the other side of the world.

Because countries with allies don't bring them as well to a table to discuss matters.

With this logic might as well say that alliances have no justification for existence.

This person's posts are ridiculous.

Typical "I am butthurt about america, lets defy all logic" post.

[s.rwitt]

You don't get it, kanaric. The US is located really far from East Asia. Therefore, its not effected by what happens there.