U.S. Politics

[OutByEaster?]

13 hours ago, blandy said:

 

here's some background

That would make perfect sense as a narrative, but the problem with the map is that I can't see the nation with the largest military presence in the region on it.

China's building of bases has coincided with the arrival in those waters of the largest fleet of warships assembled since world war two. These aren't waters that are disputed by the nations on this map, these are waters that are controlled and patrolled by the US military on a massive scale. Would I prefer that China wasn't putting military bases in an already difficult region, of course I would, it makes the world I live in less safe, but given the sheet volume of power assembled in the region by a US government that is hostile to them, I don't think you can blame them.

Here's a map showing the US bases in the region:

That includes the 7th fleet based in Yokosuka, Japan - the largest of the US's individual fleets. Now just one chunk of the assembled Pacific fleet, it includes missiles both conventional and nuclear and 50,000 troops in Japan alone. This is a force that the US has been steadily increasing over the last decade, it's a massive "do as you're told" threat to the Chinese. 

For me, that's the aggression in the region - China's aggressive response is almost negligible by comparison.

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

That would make perfect sense as a narrative, but the problem with the map is that I can't see the nation with the largest military presence in the region on it.

You can - China is shown. Sure there are American bases in Countries that invite the US to have bases, many if not all of whom, want the re-assurance of having an ally's protection. there are from your map, at the most 10 US bases in that rough area. I don't dispute that the US is militarily mighty, or that it doesn't ally with other nations around the world, who freely choose that allegiance. But in the specifics of China seizing territorial waters nowhere near China, it's undeniable what they've done, or that they are aggressively acting against their neighbours, some of whom are US allies and want the protection of the US.

[OutByEaster?]

We have a similar example in history of a US neighbour that wanted the protection of a world power from a powerful regional nation acting aggressively against it's neighbours - in that instance it took the US just 14 days to bring us to the brink of nuclear war. 

Quote

But in the specifics of China seizing territorial waters nowhere near China, it's undeniable what they've done, or that they are aggressively acting against their neighbours, some of whom are US allies and want the protection of the US.

It's undeniable that China are building militarised islands. What they've done is without any denial - either from me or them.

What's questionable is their motivation - the assumption that they are building them to seize territorial waters - the assumption that the US military presence there doesn't mean that those waters have already been seized, the assumption that this is an act of aggression against their neighbours, even the assumption that the reason the US has bases on these islands is that those islands wanted US protection. I think there are huge parts of that are open for discussion, that are open to different perspectives.

All of those assumptions start with the acceptance of the narrative that "We", in this case the US are "good" and that therefore our motivation is always for the good of mankind and "They", in this case the Chinese, are "bad" and that their motivations are always lead by their desire to hurt mankind. It's a narrative that is nonsense - their motivations are the same as ours - they're about control and they're about power - the Chinese would like to assert their position in the world by demonstrating their powers in waters they consider their own - the US would like to maintain its global hegemony and has brought it's full might to bear on those that would suggest any alternative is possible. There's no good guy in that; there's just a couple of nations packing a region with the machines of war and waving their willies at each other.

 

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

You can - China is shown. Sure there are American bases in Countries that invite the US to have bases, many if not all of whom, want the re-assurance of having an ally's protection. there are from your map, at the most 10 US bases in that rough area. I don't dispute that the US is militarily mighty, or that it doesn't ally with other nations around the world, who freely choose that allegiance. But in the specifics of China seizing territorial waters nowhere near China, it's undeniable what they've done, or that they are aggressively acting against their neighbours, some of whom are US allies and want the protection of the US.

hmmm... wording once more. I believe there are lots of 2 way discussions ongoing. I wasn't aware of this being settled. China has created facts on the ground. Pretty sensible strategy from a Chinese perspective. Realpolitik.

Their behavior would be interesting if the US was to, for example, cease supporting the Taiwanese separatists or if the US were to stop being at war with N.K. But, we all know that won't happen. Freedom, democracy and the children of course.

[snowychap]

Taiwanese separatists?

[HanoiVillan]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

All of those assumptions start with the acceptance of the narrative that "We", in this case the US are "good" and that therefore our motivation is always for the good of mankind and "They", in this case the Chinese, are "bad" and that their motivations are always lead by their desire to hurt mankind.

Just to be absolutely clear, my comments on this topic do not start with an 'acceptance' of this narrative, and certainly should not be taken as being in agreement with it, as it would obviously be daft. 

[blandy]

10 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

We have a similar example in history of a US neighbour that wanted the protection of a world power from a powerful regional nation acting aggressively against it's neighbours - in that instance it took the US just 14 days to bring us to the brink of nuclear war. 

It's undeniable that China are building militarised islands. What they've done is without any denial - either from me or them.

What's questionable is their motivation - the assumption that they are building them to seize territorial waters - the assumption that the US military presence there doesn't mean that those waters have already been seized, the assumption that this is an act of aggression against their neighbours, even the assumption that the reason the US has bases on these islands is that those islands wanted US protection. I think there are huge parts of that are open for discussion, that are open to different perspectives.

All of those assumptions start with the acceptance of the narrative that "We", in this case the US are "good" and that therefore our motivation is always for the good of mankind and "They", in this case the Chinese, are "bad" and that their motivations are always lead by their desire to hurt mankind. It's a narrative that is nonsense - their motivations are the same as ours - they're about control and they're about power - the Chinese would like to assert their position in the world by demonstrating their powers in waters they consider their own - the US would like to maintain its global hegemony and has brought it's full might to bear on those that would suggest any alternative is possible. There's no good guy in that; there's just a couple of nations packing a region with the machines of war and waving their willies at each other.

I see it the other way, OBE, while acknowledging that the US is far from universally good.

I think in this particular instance that the “disputed” waters are far further from China than the obviously much closer nations, as the map shows. But China is the nation with the big military, the big weight and it has built, on a submerged reef, a brand new island and then made that island a military base - in total it has put 3e airfields onto its seven bases in the disputed Spratley chain. All this just off the coast of its neighbours.

That is undeniably aggressive, through neutral eyes, or from neighbouring Vietnam, the Phillipines, Taiwan and Malaysia, for example.

Flipping your comment, I think If you start with an outlook that the US is a bad guy, it is possible to wriggle to the position that you’ve espoused on the narrow issue of China and it’s neighbours.

On the wider issue of control and power, I agree.  - yes China, the US, Russia etc. try to exercise this through various methods globally, but I’m surprised that seeing that, you don’t feel China building these bases in disputed waters is military aggressively acting to sieze the rights to the waters.

If you read more, their military and other vessels harass fishermen in the area and all the rest of it. If we start from the notion USA=bad, maybe we can excuse all that somehow....but we shouldn’t excuse it.

Edited March 28, 2018 by blandy
bit of a rewrite and tidy up

[AJ]

Donnie Junior, despite being a resident of New York, has applied in Pennsylvania for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The speculation for this is that to apply in New York, you must provide to the NYPD a tax return.

 

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/26/donald-trump-jr-celebrates-single-status-with-a-gun-permit/

I really cannot stand this man. If he really loves guns so much, then this wannabe should join the Army, and maybe, just maybe, it might change his perspective, but that will never happen.

If he joins the statistics of persons injured or killed from their own weapon, I might let out a small chuckle.

 

[villakram]

13 hours ago, snowychap said:

Taiwanese separatists?

Read your history.

Have a look at the genesis of that government. I believe we'd call them the losers of the civil war who retreated there. Hence, that slur would be appropriate at least in jest. The Chinese government may look at this in a slightly more serious manner though.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

Read your history.

Have a look at the genesis of that government. I believe we'd call them the losers of the civil war who retreated there. Hence, that slur would be appropriate at least in jest. The Chinese government may look at this in a slightly more serious manner though.

Your phrasing was a 'slur', something said 'in jest' or something else?

Edited March 28, 2018 by snowychap

[villakram]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I see it the other way, OBE, while acknowledging that the US is far from universally good.

I think in this particular instance that the “disputed” waters are far further from China than the obviously much closer nations, as the map shows. But China is the nation with the big military, the big weight and it has built, on a submerged reef, a brand new island and then made that island a military base - in total it has put 3e airfields onto its seven bases in the disputed Spratley chain. All this just off the coast of its neighbours.

That is undeniably aggressive, through neutral eyes, or from neighbouring Vietnam, the Phillipines, Taiwan and Malaysia, for example.

Flipping your comment, I think If you start with an outlook that the US is a bad guy, it is possible to wriggle to the position that you’ve espoused on the narrow issue of China and it’s neighbours.

On the wider issue of control and power, I agree.  - yes China, the US, Russia etc. try to exercise this through various methods globally, but I’m surprised that seeing that, you don’t feel China building these bases in disputed waters is military aggressively acting to sieze the rights to the waters.

If you read more, their military and other vessels harass fishermen in the area and all the rest of it. If we start from the notion USA=bad, maybe we can excuse all that somehow....but we shouldn’t excuse it.

I suppose the Chinese just need to let everyone know that they are doing this to provide security in vital shipping lanes and ensuring freedom of navigation to all, guaranteed by them.

Security & freedom. Are you against freedom?

[blandy]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

I suppose the Chinese just need to let everyone know that they are doing this to provide security in vital shipping lanes and ensuring freedom of navigation to all, guaranteed by them.

Security & freedom. Are you against freedom?

I'm aware that this is the U.S. Politics thread and my aim was to say that the behaviour of the Chinese in this area is not happening as a consequence of the US behaviour in any area. Like with the US, (or most nations) and as OBE says the humans in charge seek national advantage by multiple methods.

But on freedom, I prefer the level of freedom available via the US and Western model than that via the Chinese model. You?

[villakram]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Your phrasing was a 'slur', something said 'in jest' or something else?

A bit of all of the above.

A lot of time has passed, nonetheless, what other nations would tolerate this? Anyway, can't say I'm particularly knowledgeable on the longer term relations there, but we (the west) have supported the losers of the civil war. That's a non negligible thumbing of the nose isn't it.

I am Irish, so I fully appreciate the inherent greyness of these types of issues.

[villakram]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I'm aware that this is the U.S. Politics thread and my aim was to say that the behaviour of the Chinese in this area is not happening as a consequence of the US behaviour in any area. Like with the US, (or most nations) and as OBE says the humans in charge seek national advantage by multiple methods.

But on freedom, I prefer the level of freedom available via the US and Western model than that via the Chinese model. You?

Bravo Sir, it appears you do understand how to play the game. Apply that knowledge to all sides of the argument. It is most illuminating.

[snowychap]

Just now, villakram said:

A bit of all of the above.

A lot of time has passed, nonetheless, what other nations would tolerate this? Anyway, can't say I'm particularly knowledgeable on the longer term relations there, but we (the west) have supported the losers of the civil war. That's a non negligible thumbing of the nose isn't it.

I am Irish, so I fully appreciate the inherent greyness of these types of issues.

And yet you choose to use the same kind of language that Xi used last week?

[villakram]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

And yet you choose to use the same kind of language that Xi used last week?

So, once language is used by someone other, it is bad? That's a dangerous road to travel down. See the "we"/"they" etc. point made by OBE earlier.

Read up on China's policy w.r.t. Taiwan. It hasn't changed in a long long time. 

There's nothing new here. It's been a standard China-USA communications channel for a long time, i.e., when the US wants to make a point, it sell guns of some sort to the Taiwanese government. Watch it crop up as these trade negotiations chug along.

[snowychap]

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

So, once language is used by someone other, it is bad?

No. That's a silly argument to put forward and an incorrect assessment of what I posted.

You do have a choice over the language you use and if that language gives the same sense as its use by someone else then one can infer things from its use.

Quote

See the "we"/"they" etc. point made by OBE earlier.

I'm rather with @HanoiVillan on that point.

It's an especially daft argument to make against people who are often exceptionally critical of what 'we' do.

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

Read up on China's policy w.r.t. Taiwan. It hasn't changed in a long long time.

I have done, thanks. Nothing in there affects my questioning of your choice of words and nothing that you have said today has altered the inference I drew last night.

Edited March 28, 2018 by snowychap

[villakram]

Related to a recent discussion of the dollars status as the global reserve currency and the privilege that affords the US. Some discussion of the impact of oil futures trading opening up in Shanghai.

https://www.juancole.com/2018/03/exchange-energy-dollar.html

"So if you don’t need to buy dollars to purchase petroleum at the Shanghai exchange and you don’t need to keep your profits in US Treasury Bonds, then the world demand for dollars falls dramatically, Hayden Briscoe of UBS argues.

The basic premises of US deficit financing would collapse."

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I'm aware that this is the U.S. Politics thread and my aim was to say that the behaviour of the Chinese in this area is not happening as a consequence of the US behaviour in any area.

Which is fair enough, and that's where we disagree - I think the Chinese are guilty of building the walls of their castle on their neighbours garden, but I think they've built the walls hastily and high with the smoke from their enemy's camp fires visible on the horizon. I think the word aggressive is what's separating us and our deductions on motivations. Would I be happier if there were no militarised islands being built of the South China sea by the Chinese? Of course I would, I think we both would. I'd be happier if the US left the area too. Both make the place a lot more dangerous and the whole world a little more dangerous as a result.

As you say, some of the Chinese islands are pretty close to the homes of their neighbours, but they're all a long way from Washington. Neither wrong makes that right - it's just that we've become accustomed to one of them to the point of invisibility. 

Quote

But on freedom, I prefer the level of freedom available via the US and Western model than that via the Chinese model. You?

I'd really hope there's a better freedom out there somewhere.

 

[Straggler]

Trump has proclaimed April 2018 as National sexual assault awareness and prevention month.

Alanis Morrisette if you are watching, this is an example you could have used.