And also an US-SK exercise in the Yellow Sea June 23-25... so expect rhetoric from NK...

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-c....

Quote:

US carrier to take part in exercises with Korean, Japanese navies

The U.S., South Korea and Japan will conduct a two-day, trilateral naval exercise June 21-22 in the waters south of the Korean peninsula, the Pentagon announced Thursday.

Following that, the U.S. and South Korean navies will conduct “a routine carrier operation” in the Yellow Sea, west of South Korea, from June 23-25.

For the Americans, what would you think of this:

Quote:

Chinese carrier to take part in exercises with Russian, Brazilian navies.

China, Russia and Brazil will conduct a two-day, trilateral naval exercise June 21-22 in the waters south of the Florida peninsula, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization announced Thursday.

Following that, the Chinese and Russian navies will conduct “a routine carrier operation” in the Gulf of Mexico, west of Florida, from June 23-25.

The constant antagonistic behaviour masking as the assertion of freedom just gets old.

Ben,

We don't claim to own all the oil rights just offshore of Mexico nor do we claim ownership of the Gulf of Mexico (like the China's claims on the yellow sea).

China claims mineral rights right up to the beaches of Vietnam.

So we're are there to keep the sea lanes open.

The day Russian participates in Joint Exercises with China in our backyard will be the same day China quits referring to Eastern Russia as their "Northern Resource Zone".

China is NOT a friendly neighbor.

It's one thing to build a really big ship with a flat deck. It's a whole 'nother thing to actually have all the systems / personnel perform as planned in combat.

China's 5-7 years away from having anything remotely credible in a surface naval warfare arena.

Quote:

We don't claim to own all the oil rights just offshore of Mexico nor do we claim ownership of the Gulf of Mexico (like the China's claims on the yellow sea).

You need a refresher in 'Manifest Destiny'.

Quote:

Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the continent. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico...

My point is that the GoM is precisely the same companion body of water to the China Sea.

Anyone honest can readily see that the USA is trying to contain China behind the 1st String of Islands and control what would be territorial waters if done to the USA. A string of bases arrayed in an arc. SK, Japan, Philippines.

It's unnecessary.

What American Military policy does, and has for 20+ years, is engage in psychological projection.

Because Americans build fancy weapons and then find a justification to use them, they then project their view onto others.

"No one builds stuff they never intend to use in war..."

Conveniently overlooking the now-rusting hulks of Russian/Soviet ships dying in Arctic Ports, or Brasilian Carriers, Australian Carriers, French Boomers...I could go on.

It's just a reason to be a bully.

We set up tripwires/bases/allies everywhere.

Then someone stumbles over one of them.

"You saw him. He had a gun!"

And then we start shooting.

I am tired of it, and tired of my money going to support it. Enough.

America needs to contract to a regional power as things were 1914-1940.

We are just making things worse.

Oh...and the unofficial USA doctrine that any nation that supercedes American economic superiority is a defacto direct military threat? Hello - USA is acting on this already, already assuming that China will have a larger economy and by virtue of this alone will become a military threat to the USA.

China isn't perfect but neither is the USA.

We need to learn to share the planet, and China is going to have a bigger economy in a year or two.

Quote:

China is NOT a friendly neighbor.

Neither are we.

You all need to re-read your history, and look at the extent of Chinese military invasions and where they went. Regional, not global.

We? Well we have gone everywhere since 1945, killing people globally. Locally we stopped in the early 20th C. if you exclude Cuba, Mexico, Grenada and Panama.

This duality of 'we are Number One!' 'Land of the Free' and then how we act...it's just sickening and the planet is tired of it and many Americans who are elsewhere are getting fed up with it, too.'.

I did not even touch on the exportation of debt and inflation...

Ben, your logic above might need reevaluation... America fought regionally, until it was able to fight globally in an attempt to build an empire. China fought regionally in the past, so they will simply be content with regional dominance? Get real.

I like the concept of peace as much as the next guy, but you bring naivety to a new level. Seriously, you mention rusting Soviet ships as proof that not every military device is meant to be used??? Well, Ben, why are those Soviet ships rusting? Not because the Soviets lacked a desire for hegemony, that much is certain.

And, Ben, just to bring this full circle, why don't you go ahead and defend the massive, massive theft of intellectual property that the Chinese have engaged in over the past 15 years. These continuous and pervasive acts of war are surely just "regional" and justifiable, right, Ben (despite the attacks being global)?

You've obviously read your history, but, Ben, I really wish you would have opened a history book on the 20th century, rather than an early 20th century history book.

Yup Chinese gonna rip **** up when they can globally project power. It's just human nature... As for intellectual propert theft that is human nature also. Reversed situation US would be doing same ****. Instead we just ****ed china on every financial deal imaginable for a few years, treated them as dumb money until they weren't...

Jr, I agree, but my point is that sometimes people disapprove of the premise, yet demand the result. Ben suggests that we abandon our empire to become a regional power, but that's not how it works, and he expects that our actions will be treated in kind. They will not. Read "The Prince." For all that has changed, the premise has not. Nations, by their very nature, have a tendency to pursue the loftiest of possible goals.

I mean, before WWI, Russia had never never attempted global dominance. Before WWII, neither had Japan. History is useful, but it does have limits.

Quote:

China fought regionally in the past, so they will simply be content with regional dominance? Get real.

You are simply ignorant and incorrect.

Chinese and Asian History needs to be mandatory in High School as clearly few know it. I certainly did not 10 years ago.

In 1405, Zheng He and the Ming Dynasty amassed the world's largest armada up to that time. Both in the scale of the fleet and the size of the vessels, they were unmatched until the vast navies of WWII.

This armada traveled as far as Ethiopia and the Red sea and Mecca and Medina. They had no intent on conquest but rather setting up tribute bases and bringing leaders back to Ming to pay tribute. When confronted and refused tribute they would fight, but not conquer. In 1425 a very short lived emporer pulled the plug on the voyages and finances. They turned around before rounding Africa and heading to Europe.

A few years later in 1433 the finances of the empire contracted, the ships were scrapped, and China receded to look within.

Had these vessels merely APPEARED at major European ports, China would have conquered all of Europe without a shot.

The vessels were 3X the size of current technology in Europe.

3X.

Yet China had the tech, but did not use it to conquer India, Thailand, etc. They merely reconquered previously held regional territory contiguous to the Mainland (Manchuria, Tibet, Kazakhstan, Northern Vietnam, Korea), etc. and demanded tribute. That's different than conquering.

They had no global ambitions even though they had the ability.

Again, as an American you project your own view onto others.

We, Americans, build stuff then justify its use in war.

You then assume the Chinese will do the same when we already have examples that your conclusion is simply wrong.

They had the world's greatest navy, but they did not try to conquer the world with it.

Settle scores?
Hold sway over the China Sea and the 1st Ring of Islands?
Be the regional power?
Force the Americans out in to the Pacific?

Yes, definitely.

Conquer the world as the British and Americans did?

I think not.

Quote:

Chinese gonna rip **** up when they can globally project power. It's just human nature

Well, they could have from 1405-1433 and they did not.

Ben: The reason it's MUCH more likely now than it was then is a simple one, resources.

I would be the 1st to say, the only thing I care about is China's actions. Their POV and cheerleading team mean zip to me.

"Anyone honest can readily see that the USA is trying to contain China behind the 1st String of Islands and control what would be territorial waters if done to the USA. A string of bases arrayed in an arc. SK, Japan, Philippines."

The non-china locals are interested in keeping their stuff.
A non-Chinese puppet would see this.

bob

"America needs to contract to a regional power as things were 1914-1940."
And if we don't.

Conquered "buffer regions" and their populations generally don't like being conquered buffer regions, as the examples of post-WWII eastern European countries can attest. China's neighbors are not an exception, as Tibet and Xinjiang evidence, and future Chinese buffer region acquisitions are unlikely to be any different.

Unfortunately, almost by definition, such buffer regions generally don't have the wherewithal by themselves to prevent themselves from being swallowed.

Actually the best thing that could happen to the world would be for China to collapse politically and return to its natural historical state - regional fragmentation and warlordism. The way things are going, the historic supremacist bigotry of the Chinese will be harnessed into violent nationalism by the rulers to turn the anger of the people outward when their economy collapses.

The Chinese think that they are the center of the universe and that the world revolves around them. The conventional translation of "Middle Kingdom" doesn't do justice to the true level of bigotry inherent in the self image of the Chinese. The first character is actually closer to the meaning of "center" or "central" and that is because China was the dominant power in their region of the world and everyone literally kowtowed to them. They believed themselves to be the Center of the Universe.

China's already inflated self-image became outright delusional after contact with Europe and especially after the industrialization of Japan. Even after China was crushed by a mere portion of the British Empire's regional forces in successive Opium Wars, reality failed to penetrate the ruling class. The ambassadors of the Great Powers were referred to by the Chinese as "tribute bearers" and the British Monarch was called "the barbarian vassal Victoria." Such was the unreality of the Chinese view of the world.

As pathetic as their attitude towards the rest of the world is today, it is a VAST improvement over what things looked like a century ago. Now they merely take the attitude that "if you aren't Chinese, you're aren't ****." If China's attitudes and actions seem irrational that's because they are. The collective ego of the Chinese people simply sees themselves as resuming their natural dominance in all things. That kind of attitude is virtually guaranteed to have them over-reaching militarily.

Quote:

Conquer the world as the British and Americans did?

I think not.

Well, they could have from 1405-1433 and they did not.

I can't beleive you're trying to sell this line of crap again in yet another thread. But I guess you don't want to dredge up the last one after getting bitch-slapped on the BS history you're peddling.

China had ZERO chance to hold an overseas empire. They couldn't even control their own coasts. Japanese pirates ([called Wakou by the Chinese) dominated the seas right off the Chinese coast. The Chinese built that huge fleet because it was the only way to get through. Smaller convoys simply got swallowed up by the pirates.

The Chinese fleets had no economic value since the trade they carried didn't come close to paying for the cost of the fleet. That's one reason why they were disbanded. That problem would have been severely aggravated by setting up distant overseas colonies.

LOL

Quote:

"America needs to contract to a regional power as things were 1914-1940."
And if we don't.

It will do as it has since 1991.

Engage in self-justified wars on a global scale, killing more millions and alienating the rest of the planet even more. Eventually we will go the way of all Empires, thinking we are special. We will think we are different, we will think we can continue to do this, and right up until our December 26, 1991 we will think everything will go on like this forever.

Quote:

China had ZERO chance to hold an overseas empire. They couldn't even control their own coasts. Japanese pirates ([called Wakou by the Chinese) dominated the seas right off the Chinese coast. The Chinese built that huge fleet because it was the only way to get through. Smaller convoys simply got swallowed up by the pirates.

First order of business for that fleet was to kill those very pirates.
Then once they were dead and quelled, the voyages began.

You do not sail to the Arabian Peninsula from The China Sea, if you have pirates blocking your ports.

Quote:

The non-china locals are interested in keeping their stuff.
A non-Chinese puppet would see this.

Yet all that the USA has done and is doing has not taken stuff from locals.

'A non-Chinese puppet would see this.'

Thank you for making my point.