Political and Military Analysis on China

Status
Not open for further replies.

ABC78

Junior Member
Here are some video on Sino-American relations

[video=youtube;Rb8JDI2Y07w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb8JDI2Y07w[/video]

[video=youtube;UsO6yE2M6Pw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsO6yE2M6Pw[/video]
 

ABC78

Junior Member
American thoughts on President Xi and what to expect.

[video=youtube;zgtotj7qSgY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgtotj7qSgY[/video]
 

advill

Junior Member
Tks for the interesting videos. The Americans are usually open and straight forward with their comments. The Chinese and for that matter the Confucianist countries and their people (Japan, S.Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Overseas Chinese) generally do not express themselves openly, except when wanting to raise their dissatisfactions, or strongly asserting their viewpoints. We know President Xi is becoming well versed with global politics and determined to show that China can be a strong and powerful nation. Perhaps seeking dialogue, cooperation and compromise with countries in Asia, especially those involved in territorial disputes would be the best way of showing "China's Peaceful Rise". Diplomats not the military should be in the forefront to settle problems/conflicts.




American thoughts on President Xi and what to expect.

[video=youtube;zgtotj7qSgY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgtotj7qSgY[/video]
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Tks for the interesting videos. The Americans are usually open and straight forward with their comments. The Chinese and for that matter the Confucianist countries and their people (Japan, S.Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Overseas Chinese) generally do not express themselves openly, except when wanting to raise their dissatisfactions, or strongly asserting their viewpoints. We know President Xi is becoming well versed with global politics and determined to show that China can be a strong and powerful nation. Perhaps seeking dialogue, cooperation and compromise with countries in Asia, especially those involved in territorial disputes would be the best way of showing "China's Peaceful Rise". Diplomats not the military should be in the forefront to settle problems/conflicts.

Chinese and American leaders are shaped by the political system they inhabit.

In America, you have to put on a show for the back row to earn votes. Politicians might trade insults until they are red in the face, but people seldom take that personally, and everyone in the game pretty much knows that's how things work, so there are little to no negative consequences for such behaviour.

Politicians who climbed up the ladder in such an environment would naturally apply those same tactics and skills on the international stage when they are in power.

Chinese politics, otoh, is both more refined and yet also more brutal. In Chinese politics, barbs are veiled and it is not unusual to not even realise you have been insulted until after the fact. That is why people go out of their way to make sure they do not say or do anything that might conceivably be meant as an insult or slight. Because the stakes are far higher in Chinese politics, where you win or you die (sometimes literally).

Few Chinese politicians have ever been able to come back from any major defeat in recent times, and in the vast majority of cases, you only get one shot, if you blow it, that's you done with politics for good, and that is if you are lucky. More often than not, loosing a big political tussle goes hand in hand with loosing your liberty and doing a stint in prison for corruption.

Chinese leaders play the long game because they are used to fighting with only one bullet, so they need to make sure that one shot counts. They will hold their tongue and endure petty insults with a smile, but if they decide to strike back, they will make sure that when they are done, you won't ever be in any position to be able to get revenge on them.
 

A.Man

Major
My Goodness, Listen To This Guy-John McCain

美国参议员麦凯恩呼吁占领香港,解决美国秘密监听问题被泄露一事。

  In an interview with BBC World News, the hawkish Republican said that by hosting the leaker, Edward Snowden, Hong Kong has proven itself to be an enemy of the United States.

  在于BBC世界新闻节目的一次的访谈中,这位鹰派共和人谈到,既然香港对于爱德华·斯诺登这位泄密者提供了庇护,那么香港就已经证明它是美国的敌人。



  "Either you're with us or you're against us," McCain explained to anchor Freddie Lyon, "and clearly the nation of Hong Kong is against us. By harboring this known cybercriminal they pose a clear and present danger to the American people.



  “(对于美国而言),要么你就是朋友,要么你就是敌人(没有骑墙的选择)”,麦凯恩对主持人弗雷迪.里昂如此解释道,“这件事很清楚地证明香港人是反美的,给予一个已被定性的网络罪犯庇护,港人给了我们美国人民一个明确且现实的威胁”

  "I don't want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don't get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong.

  “我不想听什么狗屁引渡条例或者其它没什么实质意义的托词,这厮就是一叛徒而且如果我们不能在24小时内将其绳之以法,那么我说我们有必要开始轰炸那个香港了”

  "Luckily this is a tiny country with no real military to speak of. I don't expect any resistance. We could probably destroy their infrastructure and occupy the entire country by the end of the week."“香港是个很小的‘国家',没有什么像样的军队,预计我们的军队不会遭到抵抗。我们本周末就可以彻底摧毁其基础设施,占领该国全境。”

  "After we take Hong Kong and capture Snowden, we need to seriously think about annexing the territory,' he continued. "They have a world-class port, a great stock market and the best dim sum in the world. I don't know why China should have all of that and not us.

  我们在占领香港并抓获斯诺登后,我们需要考虑将这片土地据为己有。他们有世界水平的港口,非常棒的股票市场和最好吃的点心。我不知道为什么这里属于中国而不是属于我们。

  "If we had a military base in Hong Kong we could keep a close eye on what the Chinese are up to. We could station missiles that would be only minutes away from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tianjin - all the major cities. And finally we'd have a place where we could move the Guantanamo inmates.

  如果我们在香港拥有了军事基地,我们就可以密切监视中国在干些什么。我们可以在这里部署导弹,分分钟就可以打到北京、上海和广州。最后,我们将把关塔那摩监狱搬到这里来。
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
My Goodness, Listen To This Guy-John McCain

美国参议员麦凯恩呼吁占领香港,解决美国秘密监听问题被泄露一事。

  In an interview with BBC World News, the hawkish Republican said that by hosting the leaker, Edward Snowden, Hong Kong has proven itself to be an enemy of the United States.

  在于BBC世界新闻节目的一次的访谈中,这位鹰派共和人谈到,既然香港对于爱德华·斯诺登这位泄密者提供了庇护,那么香港就已经证明它是美国的敌人。



  "Either you're with us or you're against us," McCain explained to anchor Freddie Lyon, "and clearly the nation of Hong Kong is against us. By harboring this known cybercriminal they pose a clear and present danger to the American people.



  “(对于美国而言),要么你就是朋友,要么你就是敌人(没有骑墙的选择)”,麦凯恩对主持人弗雷迪.里昂如此解释道,“这件事很清楚地证明香港人是反美的,给予一个已被定性的网络罪犯庇护,港人给了我们美国人民一个明确且现实的威胁”

  "I don't want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don't get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong.

  “我不想听什么狗屁引渡条例或者其它没什么实质意义的托词,这厮就是一叛徒而且如果我们不能在24小时内将其绳之以法,那么我说我们有必要开始轰炸那个香港了”

  "Luckily this is a tiny country with no real military to speak of. I don't expect any resistance. We could probably destroy their infrastructure and occupy the entire country by the end of the week."“香港是个很小的‘国家',没有什么像样的军队,预计我们的军队不会遭到抵抗。我们本周末就可以彻底摧毁其基础设施,占领该国全境。”

  "After we take Hong Kong and capture Snowden, we need to seriously think about annexing the territory,' he continued. "They have a world-class port, a great stock market and the best dim sum in the world. I don't know why China should have all of that and not us.

  我们在占领香港并抓获斯诺登后,我们需要考虑将这片土地据为己有。他们有世界水平的港口,非常棒的股票市场和最好吃的点心。我不知道为什么这里属于中国而不是属于我们。

  "If we had a military base in Hong Kong we could keep a close eye on what the Chinese are up to. We could station missiles that would be only minutes away from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tianjin - all the major cities. And finally we'd have a place where we could move the Guantanamo inmates.

  如果我们在香港拥有了军事基地,我们就可以密切监视中国在干些什么。我们可以在这里部署导弹,分分钟就可以打到北京、上海和广州。最后,我们将把关塔那摩监狱搬到这里来。

;):p

Its-a-Fake.jpg

The first clue is that no politician would ever be so honest. They might think exactly that, but they will put so much spin on it you would think they were doing the world a favour.
 

mr.bean

Junior Member
My Goodness, Listen To This Guy-John McCain

美国参议员麦凯恩呼吁占领香港,解决美国秘密监听问题被泄露一事。

  In an interview with BBC World News, the hawkish Republican said that by hosting the leaker, Edward Snowden, Hong Kong has proven itself to be an enemy of the United States.

  在于BBC世界新闻节目的一次的访谈中,这位鹰派共和人谈到,既然香港对于爱德华·斯诺登这位泄密者提供了庇护,那么香港就已经证明它是美国的敌人。



  "Either you're with us or you're against us," McCain explained to anchor Freddie Lyon, "and clearly the nation of Hong Kong is against us. By harboring this known cybercriminal they pose a clear and present danger to the American people.



  “(对于美国而言),要么你就是朋友,要么你就是敌人(没有骑墙的选择)”,麦凯恩对主持人弗雷迪.里昂如此解释道,“这件事很清楚地证明香港人是反美的,给予一个已被定性的网络罪犯庇护,港人给了我们美国人民一个明确且现实的威胁”

  "I don't want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don't get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong.

  “我不想听什么狗屁引渡条例或者其它没什么实质意义的托词,这厮就是一叛徒而且如果我们不能在24小时内将其绳之以法,那么我说我们有必要开始轰炸那个香港了”

  "Luckily this is a tiny country with no real military to speak of. I don't expect any resistance. We could probably destroy their infrastructure and occupy the entire country by the end of the week."“香港是个很小的‘国家',没有什么像样的军队,预计我们的军队不会遭到抵抗。我们本周末就可以彻底摧毁其基础设施,占领该国全境。”

  "After we take Hong Kong and capture Snowden, we need to seriously think about annexing the territory,' he continued. "They have a world-class port, a great stock market and the best dim sum in the world. I don't know why China should have all of that and not us.

  我们在占领香港并抓获斯诺登后,我们需要考虑将这片土地据为己有。他们有世界水平的港口,非常棒的股票市场和最好吃的点心。我不知道为什么这里属于中国而不是属于我们。

  "If we had a military base in Hong Kong we could keep a close eye on what the Chinese are up to. We could station missiles that would be only minutes away from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tianjin - all the major cities. And finally we'd have a place where we could move the Guantanamo inmates.

  如果我们在香港拥有了军事基地,我们就可以密切监视中国在干些什么。我们可以在这里部署导弹,分分钟就可以打到北京、上海和广州。最后,我们将把关塔那摩监狱搬到这里来。

its john mcain what do you expect? he was still calling Vietnamese ''gooks'' openly during his campaigning for presidency! this guy is your poster boy redneck politician. are we sure he said all that you posted above? because that is one gigantic idiot who is an embarrassment to his country. wait to this is spread to all media outlets in china! they will be laughing their butts off on this one. Chinese folks need to start praying that McCain will never be president of the United States because first thing he does will be to nuke red china!
 
Last edited:

ABC78

Junior Member
Here's an interesting opinion piece on a rising China I came across written by Murtaza Hussain a Toronto based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.

Why China might be a better superpower

Why China might be a better superpower
Unlike the US, China does not have a substantial history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands.



"The nationswhich today own the world's resources fear the rise of China and wish to postpone the day of that rise." - Rabindranath Tagore, 1915

Until the mid-20th century, China suffered what has been termed as the "Century of Humiliation" - a period of subjugation and oppression by Western military powers (as well as the Japanese). During this time Western imperialists flooded the country with drugs, raped and murdered its subjects with impunity and - due to both insatiable greed and abject ignorance to concepts such as culture and history - wantonly desecrated the priceless monuments of ancient Chinese civilization.

At the outset of this period - when hordes of English soldiers destroyed Beijing's ancient Summer Palace in an orgy of looting and arson - Major General Charles Gordon said, "You can scarcely imagine the beauty and magnificence of the places we burnt" - which in many ways was emblematic of the entire carnivorous project of Western imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Today, however, Rabindranath Tagore's prophecy about China seems to have come to fruition, and the modern heirs to rapacious criminals such as Gordon now openly lament their fear of rising Chinese power.

In the place of the former colonial forces such as England and France, however, today, sits the US, the world's only remaining military superpower. While since the fall of the Soviet Union the US has been widely considered to be the preeminent nation globally, in recent years it has fallen into an observable malaise.

Due to its wars of aggression, institutionalized torture, unaccountable assassination programmes and general contempt for the rule of law, the American government has today sacrificed whatever was once considered admirable about its role in international affairs. Furthermore, it is fast sacrificing what was once most admirable about it domestically, as once-cherished civil liberties are being forfeited and its citizens are being compelled to submit to an opaque and pervasive surveillance state.

While China is far less free domestically, in international affairs the country continues to ascend both economically and in terms of international influence. It is thus worth asking, is this a positive development for the world at large? Could China be a more responsible, less violent and more constructive superpower than the US?

Historical contrasts

Over its history, the US has undoubtedly provided much for the betterment of mankind in the fields of science, arts, good governance and human development. The country continues to produce some of the most exceptional contributors in all these areas, and for all the cruel excesses of the US government the American people are among the most generous, hospitable and high-achieving population in the world. The US is by no means a monolith and its impressive ideological diversity continues to be one of its enduring strengths.

However, while the US was founded on the principle of national self-determination, throughout its history, its foreign policy has been based on denying that same right to others around the globe. From the early 20th century invasions and occupations of the Philippines and Haiti, the CIA coups against democratic governments in Iran and Chile, up to the near genocidal military onslaughts against the Vietnamese and Iraqi people, the US - in a relatively short time frame - has left a trail of destruction around the world which is without parallel in human history.

While couched in the deeply cynical rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the body count left by US militarism and colonial exploitation runs to millions. It has been well-documented that what has motivated these brutally malicious policies (aside from naked greed) is a crude sense of racism and a chauvinistic belief in "Manifest Destiny" - the same ruthlessly imperialistic ideology which helped justify the holocaust committed against the indigenous people of the Americas and which drove the Atlantic slave trade.

China, despite existing as a unified country 4,000 years longer than the US, conspicuously does not have such a history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands. While it has had its share of localised conflicts, there is nothing in its history - even over the many centuries during which China was as at the peak of its historical power - that is remotely comparable to the industrialised exploitation and mass-murder which has characterised the Western colonial project.

Despite being one of the wealthiest and powerful countries on earth for most of its existence, China's relationship with the outside world has traditionally been characterised more by Sino-centric inertia and peaceable exchange than by armed pillage and the export of violence to foreign lands. As surmised by the famed 19th century scholar of Buddhism, Zhang Taiyin:

"Asian countries… rarely invaded one another and treated each other respectfully with the Confucian virtue of benevolence."

While China has in many ways been torn from its traditional culture by traumatic recent encounters with Western imperialist powers and the subsequent upheavals of Mao's Cultural Revolution, the country's traditionally harmonious worldview ("harmony" being a recurring theme in Chinese political culture) is still seen in modern China's global relations.

China's peaceful rise

To achieve its foreign policy goals in Iraq, the US embarked on a decades-long campaign of violence against the Iraqi people which culminated in the brutal invasion and occupation of the country in 2003. While the US succeeded in destroying the lives of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, it failed to create an outcome which was of benefit to it and ultimately left the country with its influence and prestige greatly eroded.

China, however, has in many ways emerged as the "winner" of the Iraq war, as it is today by far the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi crude oil contracts. In stark contrast to the US primitive and brutal approach to the country, China has used soft-power to great effect and is now the most influential commercial player in the country's oil boom.

Thanks to its efforts China is today recognised as a major investor in the future of Iraq. According to the New York Times, Chinese executives are now even impressing their Iraqi counterparts by speaking with them in flawless, Iraqi-accented Arabic.

The contrast between China's culturally sensitive approach and the contemptuous and violent attitude taken by the US in Iraq cannot be overstated. In fact, these contrasts are in many ways a reflection of the differing worldviews and historical backgrounds of the two countries.

While the US seems committed to exert imperial hegemony over the Middle East using brute military force and punitive economic blockades against civilians, China has publically committed to a policy of "peacefully rising" and has built mutually beneficial and respectful relationships throughout the region.

While Chinese polices are no less self-interested, the country's forthright pragmatism is a refreshing alternative to the blatantly cynical and manipulative moralising rhetoric of Western powers. Shallow accusations of Chinese colonialism in Africa (based on Chinese commercial investments in the region) appear borne more of Western fears of Chinese power than of legitimate concerns about African self-determination.


Inside Story Americas - Have lessons been learnt from the Iraq war?

Evidence suggests that China's influence in Africa has been built on the basis of mutual economic interest and its investments have coincided with historically unprecedented economic growth among the people of the continent. The contrast with the unrelentingly murderous and rapacious history of actual Western colonialism in Africa could not be starker.

A multipolar world

China today is a burgeoning player in global affairs, making forays into the Israel/Palestine conflict, taking material steps to confront environmental issues and pushing its "soft-power" approach to international relations to new lengths. In the face of its rising stature many pundits and political figures have attempted to harp upon the inevitable growing pains of any rising power and cite this as evidence of its immaturity.

While China is by no measure perfect, for years the country and its people have been unjustly demonised by those whose own hands are caked in the blood of untold number of innocents. Allegations of purported Chinese malevolence should be viewed for what they most often are - the hysterical propaganda of those who are fearful and insecure about competition for their own privileged position.

The US however should not fear the rising tide of Chinese influence. Rather, it should warmly welcome it. In a unipolar world, the US government was free to act out its most self-destructive tendencies and was devoid of any pressure to reform in order to compete with a major adversary. Indeed, the US achieved its most admirable feats when it was facing serious competition from Soviet Russia.

While China is not yet a large enough player to individually balance the US on most major issues, its status is rising. When working within the emerging "BRICS" bloc of countries, it is capable of constraining unilateral US actions. This is good for both the American and Chinese people, as the existence of a multipolar world will mean that neither government will be able to delve into unchecked excess and military adventurism.

However, as China's relationship with the US and other major powers develops, there is no doubt that the country has finally come to equal terms with its former oppressors. China's ascendance signifies the fruition of Tagore's prophecy and the long victory of the Chinese people over Western imperialism.

If China continues its remarkably successful policy of "peacefully rising" while pursuing continued self-improvement and reform, it will remain both a welcome player in global affairs and a responsible model for other aspiring world powers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

delft

Brigadier
I want to pick up one small part of Murtaza Hussain's article:
The contrast between China's culturally sensitive approach and the contemptuous and violent attitude taken by the US in Iraq cannot be overstated. In fact, these contrasts are in many ways a reflection of the differing worldviews and historical backgrounds of the two countries.
The background of European political history includes defense against and adaptation of ideas from nomad peoples from the Eurasian steppes, most notably Attila and Genghis Khan. This spurred the development of mounted warriors who developed political power on the basis of their military power. This strong feudal military component of European politics laid the basis for take over from the Muslims of Southern Italy and Sicily by the "nobles" from Normandy, the reconquista of Spain and Portugal and most notoriously the Crusades against the Middle East. It then extended to maritime expansion to the Americas and Asia. It also led to many European wars which helped develop military superiority over all non-European countries.
We are now at the end of this development. Non-European countries led by China now hamper the style of even the largest of the European type states, the US. See the failures in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan and the likely failure in Syria.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is a must read to understand Medieval European warfare. Crossbows in Europe are not the same thing as in China with Europe preferring short draw lengths and heavy weights with mechanical aids. This creates a slow shooting weapon with high precision, while the Chinese version has a higher rate of shot and could double the number of projectiles per shot - creating a device that copied characteristics of the bow like volume shot per area (kill zones). Both were feared by the mounted archers.
How does this relate to the current debate? One system, several solutions.
Europe had master crossbowmen, who could fix the device during operations and who were the equals of a heavy mounted warrior (man-at-arms, few of them were knightly members of nobility, most were sergeants, a status, not a rank then). These were supported by a crew that was quickly trained to operate crossbows (important to understand the confusing sources). The master crossbowmen (and yeomen-archers in Britain) had their status due to achievement, just like academics in Christian Europe, who upon receiving a Ph.D. were the equals of a noble. In Europe, the unit of measurement was the militaristic nobility that created the status of "knight". You could advance to such a rank as a craftsman with a crossbow, as a scholar with a diploma from Europe's few university's, as a merchant who became a patrician in a town (in most places these patricians were made knights - the entrance to nobility) or as noble who trained for war.
China did have a different system under comparative strict central control and with an ideology that excluded merchants from high status, while in Europe bankers were, despite Christian prejudice, able to enter the ranks of nobility. Let's say the intense competition kept Europe nimble in search for any advantage (most of them were social) and made them specialists on effective defensive systems with small and cheap armies.

Europe is highly competitive, but not really aggressive. Conquering the world was an accident, because the Europeans happened to have integrated their merchants into a system of power and created a rugged, cheap and disciplined warrior - the soldier - who during their conquest happened to be largely natives adapted to the climate and welcoming the European influence. It's doing none any good to claim that Europe conquered the world against tough opposition of everyone else. Europe did dispose local elites from their power structures and establish new structures that are in place now. All that transformation did cost blood and treasure and in the end paid less and less benefits, plus even European settled colonies revolted and became some other nation. The world was largely transformed due to European concepts prevalent at different times. At the moment, the US is the most powerful outgrow of that European transformation movement that started during the crusades with conversions to Catholic Christianity. Was it trigggered by the earlier push for conversion to Islam (and bloody fight over the Shia or Sunni choice)? I don't know, but calling China a non-transformative nation and a nation that did not use violence to transform the outside world, including more or less forced integration and assimilation would do wrong to their history. Just ask the Thai or Vietnamese who lost their ancient homelands to China - long time ago.
It's certain that China will transform the world, but it's not certain how and history is an ill predictor of the future. Chinese history has its genocides just like all other human cultures have them, possibly as a warning not to repeat that. The US manifest destiny and their treatment of the Indians should be reassesed by the treatment the several migrant waves to the American continent gave each other before. And keep in mind how fluid the change of elites in the European system was, very much unlike in ancient China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top